6 ms·

@dang it looks like some political group are clicking on the flag button. Without moderation it's probably for the best, political divisiveness doesn't belong h

by lvass 3y ago

@dang it looks like some political group are clicking on the flag button. Without moderation it's probably for the best, political divisiveness doesn't belong here, but I fail to see how this story is divisive except perhaps the fact it's related to a judge appointed by a president. Consider unflagging it and delete/warn/ban overly political divisive comments.

unclebucknasty 3y ago
>I fail to see how this story is divisive Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk.
- lvass 3y ago
  Well, it is already unflagged. I don't follow your logic here though, the owner of Twitter isn't an adequate source of judicial orders received by twitter? What's wrong with Greenwald? Are you implying they collided to report something that did not happen? Why would that make sense? If that was the case, that itself would be news, not something to just flag and ignore.
  - unclebucknasty 3y ago
    Your question was WRT why some people would find the article politically divisive.
- hexage1814 3y ago
  >Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk. Honestly, you could say the same thing about the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, DW, etc or, hell, even Brazil's Supreme Court who will say “everything is working just fine”, despite the increasing censorship happening in the country that they have been taking part. Everyone has some narrative and bias. The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with. And when I'm reading the Times, I'm listening to some sort of "unfiltered truth". Sure, Musk might have other interests with this other than defending freedom of speech in Brazil. But the same can be said about Moraes, the Brazilian judge censoring journalists who criticize him left and right, going as far as trying to extradite them (and failing on that btw), blocking their profiles on social media, sure as hell isn't interested in "defend the rule of law" or whatever his official excuse is.
  - unclebucknasty 3y ago
    >The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with I'd argue the bigger problem is rampant "what-aboutism" that infects virtually every discussion these days. What does the NYT or WaPo have to do with Musk, Brazil, or this situation? The subject is Musk. Why broaden the discussion this way to "even out" things for him? In any case, I was responding to the OP who asked why this article would be considered divisive. My answer is that some (including myself) don't deem Musk/Greenwald to be honest brokers. Musk and his allies have a distinct pattern of supporting certain narratives and rejecting others, while claiming to be champions of free speech and freedom.
    - lobocinza 3y ago
      The interlocutor doesn't matter. You shouldn't trust anyone as a general rule and you don't need to trust Musk or Gleenwald as they are not the only ones talking about this. > The subject is Musk. You tried to make it so but the subject is authoritarianism in Brazil.
      - unclebucknasty 2y ago
        >The interlocutor doesn't matter Of course it matters. And, there is roughly a 0% chance that anyone who is at least semi-cogent, including you, operates in the real world with the belief that it doesn't. That would be highly inadvisable, unless one enjoys being a persistent rube. >You tried to make it so The story is about Musk's and Greenwald's takes on authoritariansim in Brazil. The OP asked how it could be considered divisive. One obvious answer is that people are considering the source(s) and their histories. Whatever your personal feelings, two things are true: 1. People absolutely do consider the source 2. Musk and Greenwald are controversial figures with specific motives and ideologies that frequently cause rancor
        lobocinza 2y ago
        I realize your argument was that the story is divisive and I might've made an unnecessary rebuttal. Yes, the interlocutor can make a story divisive though it doesn't change the truthiness (or falseness) of the subject. Where Musk and Greenwald are often divisive they are not the only voices calling out the supreme court authoritarianism in Brazil. The acts and postures of the ministers are enough evidence.
- LaSombra 3y ago
  Nailed it.
arp242 3y ago
It's a single-line tweet with no information, no background, no anything. I learned nothing from clicking this link beyond a vague accusation which may or may not have merit to it and where there may or may not be more to the story. So yeah, I flagged it.
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  My submission referring to Shellenberger's comments on the actions of this judge a few hours ago was also flagged and killed quickly, I referred to it in a comment above [1]. He was a bit more elaborate than Greenwald in explaining the background - which does not seem 'vague' at all - which clearly posts a picture of regulatory abuse related to information distribution, something which clearly intersects with the interest sphere of many HN users and certainly many Brazilian HN users. It was quite common to see criticism of Bolsonaro [2] survive and thrive here but criticism of Lula da Silva hitherto does not fare as well which does point at a political dimension at play. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974902 [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bolsonaro https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bolsonaro

by lvass 3y ago

unclebucknasty 3y ago

>I fail to see how this story is divisive Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk.

lvass 3y ago
Well, it is already unflagged. I don't follow your logic here though, the owner of Twitter isn't an adequate source of judicial orders received by twitter? What's wrong with Greenwald? Are you implying they collided to report something that did not happen? Why would that make sense? If that was the case, that itself would be news, not something to just flag and ignore.
- unclebucknasty 3y ago
  Your question was WRT why some people would find the article politically divisive.
hexage1814 3y ago
>Because many would say that Greenwald is not an honest broker, and neither is Musk. Honestly, you could say the same thing about the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, DW, etc or, hell, even Brazil's Supreme Court who will say “everything is working just fine”, despite the increasing censorship happening in the country that they have been taking part. Everyone has some narrative and bias. The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with. And when I'm reading the Times, I'm listening to some sort of "unfiltered truth". Sure, Musk might have other interests with this other than defending freedom of speech in Brazil. But the same can be said about Moraes, the Brazilian judge censoring journalists who criticize him left and right, going as far as trying to extradite them (and failing on that btw), blocking their profiles on social media, sure as hell isn't interested in "defend the rule of law" or whatever his official excuse is.
- unclebucknasty 3y ago
  >The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with I'd argue the bigger problem is rampant "what-aboutism" that infects virtually every discussion these days. What does the NYT or WaPo have to do with Musk, Brazil, or this situation? The subject is Musk. Why broaden the discussion this way to "even out" things for him? In any case, I was responding to the OP who asked why this article would be considered divisive. My answer is that some (including myself) don't deem Musk/Greenwald to be honest brokers. Musk and his allies have a distinct pattern of supporting certain narratives and rejecting others, while claiming to be champions of free speech and freedom.
  - lobocinza 3y ago
    The interlocutor doesn't matter. You shouldn't trust anyone as a general rule and you don't need to trust Musk or Gleenwald as they are not the only ones talking about this. > The subject is Musk. You tried to make it so but the subject is authoritarianism in Brazil.
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      >The interlocutor doesn't matter Of course it matters. And, there is roughly a 0% chance that anyone who is at least semi-cogent, including you, operates in the real world with the belief that it doesn't. That would be highly inadvisable, unless one enjoys being a persistent rube. >You tried to make it so The story is about Musk's and Greenwald's takes on authoritariansim in Brazil. The OP asked how it could be considered divisive. One obvious answer is that people are considering the source(s) and their histories. Whatever your personal feelings, two things are true: 1. People absolutely do consider the source 2. Musk and Greenwald are controversial figures with specific motives and ideologies that frequently cause rancor
      - lobocinza 2y ago
        I realize your argument was that the story is divisive and I might've made an unnecessary rebuttal. Yes, the interlocutor can make a story divisive though it doesn't change the truthiness (or falseness) of the subject. Where Musk and Greenwald are often divisive they are not the only voices calling out the supreme court authoritarianism in Brazil. The acts and postures of the ministers are enough evidence.
LaSombra 3y ago
Nailed it.

arp242 3y ago

It's a single-line tweet with no information, no background, no anything. I learned nothing from clicking this link beyond a vague accusation which may or may not have merit to it and where there may or may not be more to the story. So yeah, I flagged it.

hagbard_c 3y ago
My submission referring to Shellenberger's comments on the actions of this judge a few hours ago was also flagged and killed quickly, I referred to it in a comment above [1]. He was a bit more elaborate than Greenwald in explaining the background - which does not seem 'vague' at all - which clearly posts a picture of regulatory abuse related to information distribution, something which clearly intersects with the interest sphere of many HN users and certainly many Brazilian HN users. It was quite common to see criticism of Bolsonaro [2] survive and thrive here but criticism of Lula da Silva hitherto does not fare as well which does point at a political dimension at play. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974902 [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bolsonaro https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bolsonaro