5 ms·
An upvote does not mean the user believes the story is true.
by mlok 1y ago
An upvote does not mean the user believes the story is true.
- perihelions 1y agoThen they are illogically boosting a hoax on purpose, or at least with reckless disregard for truth.
- vpribish 1y agoOr not engaging enough to come to any conclusion - just chuckle - upvote. Useful, but not idiots nor villains
- zahlman 1y agoJust because you don't consciously believe something to be true, doesn't mean you don't care about its veracity. The null hypothesis is that people are willing to treat things as true based on their priors — which could be informed by things as simple as "this was posted on a website not known as a den of misinformation, and shared on HN" — while not actually devoting thought to an investigation of the truth.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nailer 1y ago> "this was posted on a website not known as a den of misinformation, and shared on HN" I don't know whether you mean Threads or Bluesky but it sounds like you haven't used either.
- natch 1y agoYeah I have peeked into both and have never seen such a strident collection of vituperation, misinformation, and hatred. For people who claim to have left Twitter due to supposed toxicity, they definitely seem unacquainted with mirrors.
- username332211 1y agoOr they want knowledge of the hoax to spread, so as to protect the victim against further lies?
- pengaru 1y agoIf your goal is to burn down tesla/musk, you logically promote everything remotely damaging. And there are plenty rational reasons to have that goal.
- dkiebd 1y agoIt’s funny that I just read the thread on rationalism and then come back to this one and someone posted this flawed nonsense.
- zahlman 1y agoMany of the people who suspected the story to be a fake were... not very well received in that thread, at least at first.
- nailer 1y agoSince HN is manually unflagging political posts, and not enforcing the 'uses HN for political advocacy' guideline the site is generally more combatative and there's a lot more hoaxes and conspiracy theories on the front page.
- gonzobonzo 1y agoI've noticed this as well. It feels more and more like Reddit everyday.
- modeless 1y agoThe problem with having a site-wide rule against complaining that the site is becoming Reddit is that when it actually becomes true you're prohibited from telling the truth.
- robocat 1y agoThere is no site-wide prohibition - which is obvious since these comments would be prohibited. There are guidelines and each guideline is mostly loosely encouraged by the community here by downvoting - in effect becoming community standards. However a well written exception can receive upvotes (even though strictly against guidelines) because it is a community and individual judgement mostly gets priority. Flagging is different because it is a much stronger signal of violation of norms, however it is still mostly a signal from the HN user community. The moderation balance on HN appears to be quite functional to me (although I'm happy with many guidelines that others fight against). Just my opinion on the topic.
- ameliaquining 1y agoI read the thread when it had something like 50 comments, and most of them were treating it as either confirmed or at least potentially true, and using it as an opportunity to rail against corporate abuse in full generality, just like every HN thread about a negative story about a tech company. It was only later that the skeptical comments started to rise to the top.
- motorest 1y ago> I read the thread when it had something like 50 comments, and most of them were treating it as either confirmed or at least potentially true (...) I think you're trying to fabricate an alternative version of reality while being aware that the facts (i.e., the actual posts in the thread) are not on your side.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- potato3732842 1y agoThe best part is that if the alleged reality is true it's an even bigger condemnation of the community. "no, they didn't believe it, they were engaging in strategic trolling and vote gaming" as if that doesn't imply a way more malicious frame of mind than some hapless idiot looking at the message and going "yup, seems legit, upvote we go". (disclaimer: I wasn't in those comments, IDK who's reality is true here)
- aydyn 1y ago>(disclaimer: I wasn't in those comments, IDK who's reality is true here) As someone who did see that thread evolve, let me help you out. HN (being largely comprised of redditors) were more than happy to amplify pure misinformation because it was politically expedient. The evidence that it was fake was given fairly early on; a lot of people ignored it. It's certainly a condemnation of the userbase on this forum.
- ameliaquining 1y ago
- thebruce87m 1y agoExactly - they might have something to gain by convincing others it is true for example.
- kimbernator 1y agoThere are non-nefarious reasons, too. If someone is unsure whether something is real they could upvote it to increase visibility and discussion.
- deepsun 1y agoAccording to HN guidelines, upvotes means something that sparks curiosity.