5 ms·

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Actually though this is a fucking big brother atrocity of a policy that people will inevitably circumve

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Actually though this is a fucking big brother atrocity of a policy that people will inevitably circumvent and the government will pick and choose when to enforce.

godelski 5y ago
Except the people aren't our enemy. We're worried about an authoritarian government harming our friends.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  The CCP is the one making the mistake, not the people. No one said it was the people.
  - godelski 5y ago
    It is easy to read the above comment that way. Often people confuse governments with people. Americans vs American Government. Chinese vs CCP. Etc. We should be clear about the distinction because certain factions have a vested interest in promoting this.
    - keyb0ardninja 5y ago
      It's better to give the other person the benefit of doubt, and in case of confusion to ask for clarification rather than making the more uncharitable interpretation of the possible interpretations and thereby questioning the morality of the other person.
      - godelski 5y ago
        > It's better to give the other person the benefit of doubt I fully agree with this and actively encourage this behavior, but we also need to be careful with our words because 1) we're in a time that we're discouraging this kind of practice and 2) as stated above there are factions actively promoting confusion about this specific subject matter (specifically ones relevant to this conversation). I would love if we could all argue in good faith and give the benefit of the doubt, but it should not be a working assumption.
    - teawrecks 5y ago
      Except that the comment itself drew a distinction between the government's decision, how the people will respond, and how the government will respond to the people's response. I could see confusion happening only if the reader gave up part way through.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    The people are harmed by the mistake, even if they aren't the ones making it.
- docmars 5y ago
  My initial (and final) interpretation was: 1. The people being enforced will find ways around these laws, naturally because it's considered unreasonable and overreaching in some regards. 2. In doing so, the government will selectively enforce these rules based on the limited amount of information or surveillance used to enforce these rules, so those who are busted for breaking them will pay the price, while others who are breaking the rules without getting caught will not pay the price. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence by breaking this down, but it's worth clarifying the scenarios. While I agree with the GP's sentiment (it's very much overreaching into the private lives of its citizens who may wish to decide for themselves (or their family) how they spend their free, recreational time), the argument is no different from the fact that many DUI offenders never get caught while some do and pay the penalties. I don't think this is a strong enough argument to mount a realistic protest against it, but it's a small factor that's unequivocally true -- many will get away with gaming longer than 3 hours anyway. Gaming longer than 3 hours will give youth a good thrill at least. ;) Jokes aside, this policy sucks.
eranima 5y ago
"enemy"? What the fuck HN. edit: Xenophobic mods flagging my comment lol
- dang 5y ago
  You've been breaking the site guidelines repeatedly, using multiple accounts. I've banned two of them. If you don't want your main account to be banned, please stop abusing the site like this. This has nothing to do with your particular opinions; we don't know, or care, what those are. We ban accounts that repeatedly post flamebait comments regardless of what they're flaming for or against. No more of that, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - eranima 5y ago
    I am not using multiple accounts, I don't know why you think I am. Calling out awful comments is not flame bait, it's calling out flame bait.
    - dang 5y ago
      Apologies if I guessed wrong about multiple accounts. "Calling out" is almost always flamebait in its own right. We're specifically trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture here. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...
      - eranima 5y ago
        It's pretty clear that the comments on this forum have gotten worse over the years, and I really really doubt banning people from calling that out is going to solve the problem.
        dang 5y ago
        People have been saying that since before HN was called HN. If you care about comment quality, you should stop posting low-quality comments. Posting the way you've been doing obviously just degrades things further.

godelski 5y ago

Except the people aren't our enemy. We're worried about an authoritarian government harming our friends.

teawrecks 5y ago
The CCP is the one making the mistake, not the people. No one said it was the people.
- godelski 5y ago
  It is easy to read the above comment that way. Often people confuse governments with people. Americans vs American Government. Chinese vs CCP. Etc. We should be clear about the distinction because certain factions have a vested interest in promoting this.
  - keyb0ardninja 5y ago
    It's better to give the other person the benefit of doubt, and in case of confusion to ask for clarification rather than making the more uncharitable interpretation of the possible interpretations and thereby questioning the morality of the other person.
    - godelski 5y ago
      > It's better to give the other person the benefit of doubt I fully agree with this and actively encourage this behavior, but we also need to be careful with our words because 1) we're in a time that we're discouraging this kind of practice and 2) as stated above there are factions actively promoting confusion about this specific subject matter (specifically ones relevant to this conversation). I would love if we could all argue in good faith and give the benefit of the doubt, but it should not be a working assumption.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    Except that the comment itself drew a distinction between the government's decision, how the people will respond, and how the government will respond to the people's response. I could see confusion happening only if the reader gave up part way through.
- nybble41 5y ago
  The people are harmed by the mistake, even if they aren't the ones making it.
docmars 5y ago
My initial (and final) interpretation was: 1. The people being enforced will find ways around these laws, naturally because it's considered unreasonable and overreaching in some regards. 2. In doing so, the government will selectively enforce these rules based on the limited amount of information or surveillance used to enforce these rules, so those who are busted for breaking them will pay the price, while others who are breaking the rules without getting caught will not pay the price. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence by breaking this down, but it's worth clarifying the scenarios. While I agree with the GP's sentiment (it's very much overreaching into the private lives of its citizens who may wish to decide for themselves (or their family) how they spend their free, recreational time), the argument is no different from the fact that many DUI offenders never get caught while some do and pay the penalties. I don't think this is a strong enough argument to mount a realistic protest against it, but it's a small factor that's unequivocally true -- many will get away with gaming longer than 3 hours anyway. Gaming longer than 3 hours will give youth a good thrill at least. ;) Jokes aside, this policy sucks.

eranima 5y ago

"enemy"? What the fuck HN. edit: Xenophobic mods flagging my comment lol

dang 5y ago
You've been breaking the site guidelines repeatedly, using multiple accounts. I've banned two of them. If you don't want your main account to be banned, please stop abusing the site like this. This has nothing to do with your particular opinions; we don't know, or care, what those are. We ban accounts that repeatedly post flamebait comments regardless of what they're flaming for or against. No more of that, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- eranima 5y ago
  I am not using multiple accounts, I don't know why you think I am. Calling out awful comments is not flame bait, it's calling out flame bait.
  - dang 5y ago
    Apologies if I guessed wrong about multiple accounts. "Calling out" is almost always flamebait in its own right. We're specifically trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture here. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...
    - eranima 5y ago
      It's pretty clear that the comments on this forum have gotten worse over the years, and I really really doubt banning people from calling that out is going to solve the problem.
      - dang 5y ago
        People have been saying that since before HN was called HN. If you care about comment quality, you should stop posting low-quality comments. Posting the way you've been doing obviously just degrades things further.