3 ms·
This submission is currently marked as [flagged] but I can't see what is supposedly wrong with it: it's an interesting article about an interesting idea, and wh
by gjm11 1y ago
This submission is currently marked as [flagged] but I can't see what is supposedly wrong with it: it's an interesting article about an interesting idea, and while it's kinda politics-adjacent it's not the sort of party-political that tends to induce rage and stupidity, and the comments here seem pretty reasonable.
I guess there's a sizeable contingent of HN readers who don't want anything having anything to do with politics on HN, but I think some politics-related things -- including this -- fall into the category of "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".
- rawgabbit 1y agoIt is either they are willfully ignorant as we watch habeas corpus and due process erode. Or they are just ostriches putting their heads in the sand.
- patcon 1y ago@dang given that HN is a pretty powerful place, and things read here are what a certain a sort of world shaper will know about: can you say whether there have been any interference operations by nation-state adversaries to subtly prune content? I wonder whether HN's monitoring tools are robust to detect such things When I see this being downvoted, it's a field I know well, and it's considered by many to be the best response to the neo-reactionary movement and radical progressive left's division of the political conversation, and perhaps the best hope for unifying a shattered US democratic system. I can't help but be suspicious of in whose interest it would be to suppress these conversations and ideas.