7 ms·

I disagree it was a personal attack. I just said anonymous posters who claim they are <X> don't have credibility, in contrast with people who put their names an

I disagree it was a personal attack. I just said anonymous posters who claim they are <X> don't have credibility, in contrast with people who put their names and credentials up there. I haven't called the poster names or insulted them. It's very easy to shape public opinion, dang; we shouldn't let anonymous posters set the tone of discussion or flung FUD around on the most important issue of our lives. When I go to the doctor, I know I can trust them because I see a diploma on the wall, they have a name, I can ask other doctors about them. Would you, dang, let someone you just met on the street operate on you? Or diagnose you? Just because they said they were a doctor?

dang 3y ago
You're misassessing the costs and benefits of attacking people for posting anonymously. Re costs: Look at https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=oceanthrowaway https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=oceanthrowaway - the odds that this commenter is legit are quite high. Would it would have been better if they had posted under a regular username? Sure, but people sometimes have good reasons for making throwaway accounts to post about topics they're professionally expert in. Such comments add value to HN, sometimes a lot of value (e.g. sometimes they give important inside information about a topic), and punishing people for doing that is against the community interest. Re benefits: it's not at all easy to "shape public opinion" by an anonymous comment on an internet forum. You'd have to do it repeatedly, and the more repetitive it gets, the more predictable the comments become, and the more likely the community will have an immune response to it. In my experience from moderating this place over the years, internet users are far too quick to assume that they're encountering manipulative stealth behavior. What you should be responding to instead is the quality of the comments. If a throwaway account is repeatedly posting low-quality comments, then sure, that's a good reason to be critical - but the throwawayness of the account should not be the high-order bit. If you had made your point less aggressively, I probably wouldn't have responded, but you came down on the GP like a hammer (e.g. "spreading FUD from behind anononymity") and that put your comment on the wrong side of the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  > you should be responding to instead is the quality of the comments. But that's the thing, isn't it? I'm not an expert in climate science, I can't judge what's quality and what's FUD reasonably phrased. Neither the vast majority on HN. There is no way for us to determine if this anonymous guy makes some good points or just wants to spread some doubt towards the study. Just because climate science seems more approachable than maths, doesn't mean people are equipped to determine what's true, what's manipulation or what's plausible. Blows my mind some guy made an account, said he was a physical oceanographer, made some grammatically correct comments and everyone believed it. Just like that! > internet users are far too quick to assume that they're encountering manipulative stealth behavior. It's 2023 and it's about climate change, dang...
  - dang 3y ago
    In that case you could ask curious questions that would help you, and the rest of us, to learn about it; or you could just not post. > I can't judge what's quality and what's FUD I hear you! but you attacked the other person specifically for "spreading FUD". That is not a helpful thing to do, even if you can judge the question.

dang 3y ago

You're misassessing the costs and benefits of attacking people for posting anonymously. Re costs: Look at https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=oceanthrowaway https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=oceanthrowaway - the odds that this commenter is legit are quite high. Would it would have been better if they had posted under a regular username? Sure, but people sometimes have good reasons for making throwaway accounts to post about topics they're professionally expert in. Such comments add value to HN, sometimes a lot of value (e.g. sometimes they give important inside information about a topic), and punishing people for doing that is against the community interest. Re benefits: it's not at all easy to "shape public opinion" by an anonymous comment on an internet forum. You'd have to do it repeatedly, and the more repetitive it gets, the more predictable the comments become, and the more likely the community will have an immune response to it. In my experience from moderating this place over the years, internet users are far too quick to assume that they're encountering manipulative stealth behavior. What you should be responding to instead is the quality of the comments. If a throwaway account is repeatedly posting low-quality comments, then sure, that's a good reason to be critical - but the throwawayness of the account should not be the high-order bit. If you had made your point less aggressively, I probably wouldn't have responded, but you came down on the GP like a hammer (e.g. "spreading FUD from behind anononymity") and that put your comment on the wrong side of the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

GeoAtreides 3y ago
> you should be responding to instead is the quality of the comments. But that's the thing, isn't it? I'm not an expert in climate science, I can't judge what's quality and what's FUD reasonably phrased. Neither the vast majority on HN. There is no way for us to determine if this anonymous guy makes some good points or just wants to spread some doubt towards the study. Just because climate science seems more approachable than maths, doesn't mean people are equipped to determine what's true, what's manipulation or what's plausible. Blows my mind some guy made an account, said he was a physical oceanographer, made some grammatically correct comments and everyone believed it. Just like that! > internet users are far too quick to assume that they're encountering manipulative stealth behavior. It's 2023 and it's about climate change, dang...
- dang 3y ago
  In that case you could ask curious questions that would help you, and the rest of us, to learn about it; or you could just not post. > I can't judge what's quality and what's FUD I hear you! but you attacked the other person specifically for "spreading FUD". That is not a helpful thing to do, even if you can judge the question.