3 ms·

Where did you see the troll circulating that page earlier today? You want to link to the post, wherever it is?

by betwixthewires 5y ago

anigbrowl 5y ago
No, I don't want to link to it. It was not on HN.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  So I'm just supposed to take your word for it that you saw someone circulating it earlier today? You can link to the misinfo itself but not your source for it?
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Sure, why not? I don't save the URL of every troll post I see. This is the originator if you want to follow their posts. https://disqus.com/by/lore11/comments/ https://disqus.com/by/lore11/comments/
throwanem 5y ago
If you want to see people trying to spread conspiracy theories on HN, turn on showdead in your profile and, soon enough, you will. It's not all that common, but it does happen, and has proven a fairly fertile source of search terms for my own occasional research interest in the subject. Would that that interest could remain as academic as it was when the Internet and I were both young, and the stuff was all UFO abductions, or similarly innocuous and rather silly. On the other hand, it tickles my historiographical curiosity to watch a new iteration of American revivalism, rehashing the "Satanic ritual panic" of a few decades ago, evolve in near real time. So I suppose at least there is some consolation for the regret.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  Curious, so I turned on shadowdead, but what does it actually do?
  - chrononaut 5y ago
    From my understanding, with that option enabled HN will now show you all the comments (and submissions) that are marked [dead], which are not visible by unregistered users and users that do not have that option enabled. Comments are marked [dead] due to being flagged by too many users, or the user is shadowbanned, which I believe means their comments default [dead] unless vouched. I may be mistaken here.
    - throwanem 5y ago
      All correct as far as I know. It can be a bit From Beyond at times, albeit sadly impaired by the lack of Jeffrey Combs.
- GlennS 5y ago
  A weird extra effect this time around: a sizeable chunk of the internet is trying to trick journalists into talking about the silliest thing imaginable as if it were something people really believed. (I wasn't around for the first Satanic panic, nor am I American, so perhaps that was happening the first time too and I just don't know about it?)
  - throwanem 5y ago
    People really believed it then, and really believe it now, in both cases I think because they need to believe something - as do we all; if there's any one thing that distinguishes humans from all other animals, a strong candidate is that we both make and need meaning - in a time when old verities seem to crumble ever more by the day, and chaos seems ever more ascendant. If you're young, a time like that can be immensely exciting, as the future feels open to be remade and you have the chance to help shape it. If you're not, the same time can be terrifying, as the ways in which you've always understood the world seem suddenly no longer to work. As with any "conspiracy theory", the schemes of reference we here discuss can serve the purpose of restoring that sense of understanding how things work, and I think that's a big part of their appeal - for all that these are not accurate ways of understanding the world, they certainly can be compelling, and for a lot of folks the one is as good as the other. Not as many in either case believe it as as participate in it, you're right about that - as ever, much of the most apparent heat and hype is generated by hucksters cunning enough to spot an emerging market and unscrupulous enough to exploit it without concern for whatever harm they cause by so doing. But if nobody really believed it, to whom could they sell? (If you're curious, my own scheme of reference is informed primarily by historiography, but I think the essential difference is that I understand the meanings I make are the meanings I make. So, when I say that in my analysis this looks very much like a rehash of the 70s "malaise" years, I know I'm saying that at least as much because I want to believe there is precedent for times like these, and for them being not catastrophic in the way they can sometimes feel, as because my study of US history strongly suggests as much. That said, I'm not without sympathy for those who believe in the way we here discuss; I think they're foolish to do so, sure, but I've been a fool myself betimes, and I may feel very differently two or three decades hence, when I can no longer help but feel myself always under the ferryman's eyeless gaze.)

Where did you see the troll circulating that page earlier today? You want to link to the post, wherever it is?

anigbrowl 5y ago

No, I don't want to link to it. It was not on HN.

betwixthewires 5y ago
So I'm just supposed to take your word for it that you saw someone circulating it earlier today? You can link to the misinfo itself but not your source for it?
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Sure, why not? I don't save the URL of every troll post I see. This is the originator if you want to follow their posts. https://disqus.com/by/lore11/comments/ https://disqus.com/by/lore11/comments/

throwanem 5y ago

If you want to see people trying to spread conspiracy theories on HN, turn on showdead in your profile and, soon enough, you will. It's not all that common, but it does happen, and has proven a fairly fertile source of search terms for my own occasional research interest in the subject. Would that that interest could remain as academic as it was when the Internet and I were both young, and the stuff was all UFO abductions, or similarly innocuous and rather silly. On the other hand, it tickles my historiographical curiosity to watch a new iteration of American revivalism, rehashing the "Satanic ritual panic" of a few decades ago, evolve in near real time. So I suppose at least there is some consolation for the regret.

reedjosh 5y ago
Curious, so I turned on shadowdead, but what does it actually do?
- chrononaut 5y ago
  From my understanding, with that option enabled HN will now show you all the comments (and submissions) that are marked [dead], which are not visible by unregistered users and users that do not have that option enabled. Comments are marked [dead] due to being flagged by too many users, or the user is shadowbanned, which I believe means their comments default [dead] unless vouched. I may be mistaken here.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    All correct as far as I know. It can be a bit From Beyond at times, albeit sadly impaired by the lack of Jeffrey Combs.
GlennS 5y ago
A weird extra effect this time around: a sizeable chunk of the internet is trying to trick journalists into talking about the silliest thing imaginable as if it were something people really believed. (I wasn't around for the first Satanic panic, nor am I American, so perhaps that was happening the first time too and I just don't know about it?)
- throwanem 5y ago
  People really believed it then, and really believe it now, in both cases I think because they need to believe something - as do we all; if there's any one thing that distinguishes humans from all other animals, a strong candidate is that we both make and need meaning - in a time when old verities seem to crumble ever more by the day, and chaos seems ever more ascendant. If you're young, a time like that can be immensely exciting, as the future feels open to be remade and you have the chance to help shape it. If you're not, the same time can be terrifying, as the ways in which you've always understood the world seem suddenly no longer to work. As with any "conspiracy theory", the schemes of reference we here discuss can serve the purpose of restoring that sense of understanding how things work, and I think that's a big part of their appeal - for all that these are not accurate ways of understanding the world, they certainly can be compelling, and for a lot of folks the one is as good as the other. Not as many in either case believe it as as participate in it, you're right about that - as ever, much of the most apparent heat and hype is generated by hucksters cunning enough to spot an emerging market and unscrupulous enough to exploit it without concern for whatever harm they cause by so doing. But if nobody really believed it, to whom could they sell? (If you're curious, my own scheme of reference is informed primarily by historiography, but I think the essential difference is that I understand the meanings I make are the meanings I make. So, when I say that in my analysis this looks very much like a rehash of the 70s "malaise" years, I know I'm saying that at least as much because I want to believe there is precedent for times like these, and for them being not catastrophic in the way they can sometimes feel, as because my study of US history strongly suggests as much. That said, I'm not without sympathy for those who believe in the way we here discuss; I think they're foolish to do so, sure, but I've been a fool myself betimes, and I may feel very differently two or three decades hence, when I can no longer help but feel myself always under the ferryman's eyeless gaze.)