8 ms·

Thanks for sharing. The way things are here, this will soon be censored - sorry, I meant flagged - here as well.

by lbrito 10mo ago

frumplestlatz 10mo ago
[flagged]
- TimTheTinker 10mo ago
  How is this emotionally driven? It seemed like a dispassionate presentation of factual material to me. Of course, no presentation of facts is without bias of some sort (if only via their choice of which facts to present), so don't ever stop thinking critically. But flagging/censoring any presentation of facts (even biased) never helps, regardless of your viewpoint. If you disagree, write or promote a thoughtful take that explains why. I'm politically very conservative, and I'm super grateful for this. The intense political polarization in the US tends to allow party-line adherence on either side to substitute for accountability to the truth, and that is a disaster regardless of which side is currently in power. Whatever side you're on, please have the guts to hold your side's leaders accountable to the truth, not just the opposite side's leaders. We will all suffer if just one side fails to do that.
- Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
  I strongly disagree with your assessment. Are you unhappy that it's discussing how the wealthy people are getting control of the us? Please make dispassionate arguments to support your views.
- jennyholzer2 10mo ago
  [flagged]
- lbrito 10mo ago
  That's a dumb take. Burying your head in the sand won't change reality. If you cared to even watch the content you flagged, you'd have seen one of the former prisoners was a young college student with no criminal ties. I'm from south America and also went to college in the US. It could've been me.
  - aerostable_slug 10mo ago
    Note that the accused TdA member claimed to be a college student in Venezuela. He was not enrolled in any US school. Not saying he deserved to be deported to a third country, just that there's nothing publicly available that substantiates his side of the story. Part of not burying one's head in the sand is acknowledging when someone might not be the most reliable narrator.
    - lawlessone 10mo ago
      Could you tell us your position on CECOT? Do you believe El Salvador has "made a case for it?"
      - aerostable_slug 10mo ago
        How is that germane to this discussion? I already made it clear I didn't think the Venezuelan migrant in the segment should have been deported to a third country under those conditions. This feels like an attempt at a setup instead of an actual discussion of the thread's subject. That's especially glaring since you went trolling through my post history, a signature of Reddit users looking for a 'gotcha' moment more than HN users engaged in dialogue.
- dpifke 10mo ago
  It's off-topic, per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. This submission is literally a TV news broadcast. There are lots of other places on the internet where this is on-topic, I wish people would have their debates there instead.
  - TimTheTinker 10mo ago
    Since it was censored in some significant parts of the world, including Silicon Valley, it could arguably be on-topic.
    - dpifke 10mo ago
      Strong disagree. Gay porn is censored in a lot of Muslim countries, that doesn't make it on-topic for HN.
      - TimTheTinker 10mo ago
        Generally, porn isn't included in "anything that good hackers would find interesting". Censored news arguably is.
        dpifke 10mo ago
        Lots of hackers find porn very interesting. In fact, my first "real job" as a hacker was for a company with ties to the 1-900 industry that had decided to expand out onto the internet (not just to sell porn). Stories about porn would be interesting, submissions of nothing but pornography itself ("because it's censored!") are not. I would be more sympathetic to the argument that this is relevant if the submission was an article about media censorship, or CBS's audience or leadership, and how said censorship, audience, or leadership relates to technology or emerging trends in media. But this is literally just a controversial TV news broadcast, that people of one political persuasion say was "censored" and people of another political persuasion say was held off the air "temporarily" until it met network fact-checking standards. That sort of political bickering is most uninteresting, and is most definitely not why I've been reading HN for the past few decades.
- nielsbot 10mo ago
  How exactly is reporting on CECOT hysteria? I guess you have no problem with erosion of liberal freedoms as long as you’re not affected.
  - frumplestlatz 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - array_key_first 10mo ago
      The point being, it's not hysteria if it's just true. What's going on is bad thing are happening, and some people would rather force themselves to be delusional than acknowledge reality. But the reality doesn't change, it's still there.
      - frumplestlatz 10mo ago
        I could say the same things about folks like you being delusional, and I do. Things are fine. They’re better than fine. Sorry that you feel so hysterical about them all the time.
        array_key_first 10mo ago
        You could say that, because anyone can say anything, but you'd just be wrong. Obviously, "fine" is subjective. Serial killers are just fine with eating Cheez-its out of a bowl crafted from a human skull. But when the topmost officials are routinely doing very illegal things, we have at least some metric - they're illegal. When they just gloss over the illegal things they're doing, that's bad. People are really missing the broader context of CECOT and the trump administration as a whole. Who cares if a few hundred not-criminals get tortured overseas? That's a statistical drop in the bucket. And it is, but the broader implication is what matters. The implication that due process is merely a suggestion, the implication that this administration does not give even a single fuck about the american people, the implication that suffering is a price this administration is willing to pay for a prize they cannot quantify. Whether these things are happening or not is, again, not up for debate. The debate shifts to apathy. Do you care about America or it's citizenry? Or, in a pursuit of correctness, are you willing to burn it all down? Such foolishness, selfishness, and naivety is only observed in very young children. Those with developed brains under the cost of actions, and their lasting effects.
- Psillisp 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - frumplestlatz 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - SR2Z 10mo ago
      This is a factual discussion of the president sending undesirables to a concentration camp in a foreign country. It's certainly not hysterical. If this is emotional slop to you and you feel the need to complain about it, maybe you SHOULD be on r/Conservative or Xitter where you will find lots of likeminded people saying that this stuff is no big deal. Ironic.
  - TimTheTinker 10mo ago
    They may not be completely objective, but you're probably not either. We'll all do best to listen to opposing points of view (especially those that are directly critical of our side) as they will likely have truth in them that our side doesn't.
jennyholzer2 10mo ago
[dead]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
dang 10mo ago
Attentive readers will note how often the "this will be censored" comments appear in threads that spend many hours on HN's frontpage.
- lbrito 10mo ago
  I get the irony, but its a bit meaningless since we can't compare the quantity of these (yet) uncensored posts with those that have been taken down, and thus aren't visible. More importantly, other commentors here have already admitted to flagging this entry. The way flagging exists now rewards one-sideism and partisan behaviour - all it takes is a relatively small group of discontented people to take down a story that is otherwise interesting to the vast majority of posters. A counter-flag option would balance things.
  - dang 10mo ago
    > all it takes is a relatively small group of discontented people to take down a story that is otherwise interesting to the vast majority of posters. That's not accurate, because if a story is interesting to the vast majority of users, it will get lots of upvotes—and lots of upvotes is enough to defeat a small number of flags. In that sense, we already have the counter-flag option you're arguing for.
    - wswope 10mo ago
      What was the ratio of upvotes to flags when this thread was taken down last night?
      - dang 10mo ago
        What do you mean by taken down?
        wswope 10mo ago
        One of the archive.org links to this story was flagged a few hours after taking off last night. Might’ve been this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46361571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46361571 I assumed this thread had been axed and manually reapproved. Probably likewise for some of the other people posting inb4s.

Thanks for sharing. The way things are here, this will soon be censored - sorry, I meant flagged - here as well.

by lbrito 10mo ago

Thanks for sharing. The way things are here, this will soon be censored - sorry, I meant flagged - here as well.

frumplestlatz 10mo ago

[flagged]

TimTheTinker 10mo ago
How is this emotionally driven? It seemed like a dispassionate presentation of factual material to me. Of course, no presentation of facts is without bias of some sort (if only via their choice of which facts to present), so don't ever stop thinking critically. But flagging/censoring any presentation of facts (even biased) never helps, regardless of your viewpoint. If you disagree, write or promote a thoughtful take that explains why. I'm politically very conservative, and I'm super grateful for this. The intense political polarization in the US tends to allow party-line adherence on either side to substitute for accountability to the truth, and that is a disaster regardless of which side is currently in power. Whatever side you're on, please have the guts to hold your side's leaders accountable to the truth, not just the opposite side's leaders. We will all suffer if just one side fails to do that.
Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
I strongly disagree with your assessment. Are you unhappy that it's discussing how the wealthy people are getting control of the us? Please make dispassionate arguments to support your views.
jennyholzer2 10mo ago
[flagged]
lbrito 10mo ago
That's a dumb take. Burying your head in the sand won't change reality. If you cared to even watch the content you flagged, you'd have seen one of the former prisoners was a young college student with no criminal ties. I'm from south America and also went to college in the US. It could've been me.
- aerostable_slug 10mo ago
  Note that the accused TdA member claimed to be a college student in Venezuela. He was not enrolled in any US school. Not saying he deserved to be deported to a third country, just that there's nothing publicly available that substantiates his side of the story. Part of not burying one's head in the sand is acknowledging when someone might not be the most reliable narrator.
  - lawlessone 10mo ago
    Could you tell us your position on CECOT? Do you believe El Salvador has "made a case for it?"
    - aerostable_slug 10mo ago
      How is that germane to this discussion? I already made it clear I didn't think the Venezuelan migrant in the segment should have been deported to a third country under those conditions. This feels like an attempt at a setup instead of an actual discussion of the thread's subject. That's especially glaring since you went trolling through my post history, a signature of Reddit users looking for a 'gotcha' moment more than HN users engaged in dialogue.
dpifke 10mo ago
It's off-topic, per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. This submission is literally a TV news broadcast. There are lots of other places on the internet where this is on-topic, I wish people would have their debates there instead.
- TimTheTinker 10mo ago
  Since it was censored in some significant parts of the world, including Silicon Valley, it could arguably be on-topic.
  - dpifke 10mo ago
    Strong disagree. Gay porn is censored in a lot of Muslim countries, that doesn't make it on-topic for HN.
    - TimTheTinker 10mo ago
      Generally, porn isn't included in "anything that good hackers would find interesting". Censored news arguably is.
      - dpifke 10mo ago
        Lots of hackers find porn very interesting. In fact, my first "real job" as a hacker was for a company with ties to the 1-900 industry that had decided to expand out onto the internet (not just to sell porn). Stories about porn would be interesting, submissions of nothing but pornography itself ("because it's censored!") are not. I would be more sympathetic to the argument that this is relevant if the submission was an article about media censorship, or CBS's audience or leadership, and how said censorship, audience, or leadership relates to technology or emerging trends in media. But this is literally just a controversial TV news broadcast, that people of one political persuasion say was "censored" and people of another political persuasion say was held off the air "temporarily" until it met network fact-checking standards. That sort of political bickering is most uninteresting, and is most definitely not why I've been reading HN for the past few decades.
nielsbot 10mo ago
How exactly is reporting on CECOT hysteria? I guess you have no problem with erosion of liberal freedoms as long as you’re not affected.
- frumplestlatz 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - array_key_first 10mo ago
    The point being, it's not hysteria if it's just true. What's going on is bad thing are happening, and some people would rather force themselves to be delusional than acknowledge reality. But the reality doesn't change, it's still there.
    - frumplestlatz 10mo ago
      I could say the same things about folks like you being delusional, and I do. Things are fine. They’re better than fine. Sorry that you feel so hysterical about them all the time.
      - array_key_first 10mo ago
        You could say that, because anyone can say anything, but you'd just be wrong. Obviously, "fine" is subjective. Serial killers are just fine with eating Cheez-its out of a bowl crafted from a human skull. But when the topmost officials are routinely doing very illegal things, we have at least some metric - they're illegal. When they just gloss over the illegal things they're doing, that's bad. People are really missing the broader context of CECOT and the trump administration as a whole. Who cares if a few hundred not-criminals get tortured overseas? That's a statistical drop in the bucket. And it is, but the broader implication is what matters. The implication that due process is merely a suggestion, the implication that this administration does not give even a single fuck about the american people, the implication that suffering is a price this administration is willing to pay for a prize they cannot quantify. Whether these things are happening or not is, again, not up for debate. The debate shifts to apathy. Do you care about America or it's citizenry? Or, in a pursuit of correctness, are you willing to burn it all down? Such foolishness, selfishness, and naivety is only observed in very young children. Those with developed brains under the cost of actions, and their lasting effects.
Psillisp 10mo ago
[flagged]
- frumplestlatz 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - SR2Z 10mo ago
    This is a factual discussion of the president sending undesirables to a concentration camp in a foreign country. It's certainly not hysterical. If this is emotional slop to you and you feel the need to complain about it, maybe you SHOULD be on r/Conservative or Xitter where you will find lots of likeminded people saying that this stuff is no big deal. Ironic.
- TimTheTinker 10mo ago
  They may not be completely objective, but you're probably not either. We'll all do best to listen to opposing points of view (especially those that are directly critical of our side) as they will likely have truth in them that our side doesn't.

jennyholzer2 10mo ago

[dead]

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

dang 10mo ago

Attentive readers will note how often the "this will be censored" comments appear in threads that spend many hours on HN's frontpage.

lbrito 10mo ago
I get the irony, but its a bit meaningless since we can't compare the quantity of these (yet) uncensored posts with those that have been taken down, and thus aren't visible. More importantly, other commentors here have already admitted to flagging this entry. The way flagging exists now rewards one-sideism and partisan behaviour - all it takes is a relatively small group of discontented people to take down a story that is otherwise interesting to the vast majority of posters. A counter-flag option would balance things.
- dang 10mo ago
  > all it takes is a relatively small group of discontented people to take down a story that is otherwise interesting to the vast majority of posters. That's not accurate, because if a story is interesting to the vast majority of users, it will get lots of upvotes—and lots of upvotes is enough to defeat a small number of flags. In that sense, we already have the counter-flag option you're arguing for.
  - wswope 10mo ago
    What was the ratio of upvotes to flags when this thread was taken down last night?
    - dang 10mo ago
      What do you mean by taken down?
      - wswope 10mo ago
        One of the archive.org links to this story was flagged a few hours after taking off last night. Might’ve been this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46361571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46361571 I assumed this thread had been axed and manually reapproved. Probably likewise for some of the other people posting inb4s.