5 ms·
A certain amount of politics should/must be tolerated on HN, because you cannot compartmentalize technology, politics and morality. No-one, not even people who
by jll29 7mo ago
A certain amount of politics should/must be tolerated on HN, because you cannot compartmentalize technology, politics and morality.
No-one, not even people who say they like technology but do not care about politics, should be able to live their life wihtout knowing that we live in a world where six-year old blind children are murdered with automatic assault rifles.
(For the same reason that no-one should be able to live not knowing that jewish once were murdered in the millions in gas chambers.)
- vybandz 7mo ago[flagged]
- pasquinelli 7mo agoi've been on hn a long time, and if there's a prohibition against anything vaguely political if it can't be connected to technology, i've never known it.
- nxor2 7mo agoI was shadowbanned for mentioning Iryna Zarutska. Most political topics can be connected to technology: technology after all is often how we hear of and discuss these things.
- disqard 7mo agoHow did you realize you were shadowbanned? I'm curious because I sometimes wonder, if that happened to me, would it affect the way in which I engage with this website? FWIW, I often lurk, but sometimes engage (like right now). Perhaps it could happen to me and I would not realize it for a while...
- suburban_strike 7mo agoWhen your karma stops changing one way or the other is the biggest giveaway.
- nxor2 7mo agoSee my response above. You can also log out and see if your comments are shown to a user who isn't logged in. If your comments are only shown to you when you are logged in, then you are shadowbanned.
- nxor2 7mo agoHey there, sorry for the late reply. It's as simple as logging out and viewing the page. If you can't see your comments, they are not being shown to anyone but you when you are logged in. I asked hn moderation about this. It has to do with being flagged and downvoted. I don't know the remaining details. I hope this helps. I practically begged hn to consider the ramification of shadowbanning and the like. I understand the spam angle, but as a minority (who also has minority opinions) it makes me very sad that people are unwilling to believe that people dare disagree with them.
- jibbit 7mo agothere is and always has been a strong prohibition of anything political on HN. it is widely and frequently discussed as the main problem with HN. Usually, a post like this would be removed very quickly
- pasquinelli 7mo agoodd that i've never noticed
- muzani 7mo agoIt's not strictly tech. But tech tends to be both new and intellectual. Sometimes it can be an old phenomenon but also curious; people often just paste Wikipedia links here and they trend. From the guidelines: On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
- oulipo2 7mo agoTechnology IS politics. Technology is a form of control. And in the capitalist system, this control is mostly exerted by private companies, on which the rules of democracy do not apply. There must be guardrails
- fc417fc802 7mo ago[flagged]
- goku12 7mo agoTechnology is not a form of control at all. Technology is the practical application of things you know, to achieve things that don't happen naturally. Here's what the wiki says: > Technology is the application of conceptual knowledge to achieve practical goals, especially in a reproducible way. By this definition, the earliest wooden and stone tools, use of fire, wheel, agriculture, housing and clothing were all legitimate technology. It's no more 'a form of control' than medical science, any form of economics and commerce or any arts are. It's true that technology is being used as a tool of oppression. But there are several reasons for it. Controlling its access is one of the easiest ways to control a society - either by gatekeeping access to its building blocks or through draconian legislations. This is possible and done with medical science and arts too. We can live quite comfortably without the 'modern technology' that only the rich can control. But we are subjected to peer pressure by statements like "you can't compete in this era without smartphones", " you will be jobless without AI", etc. And we fall for all of it without any questions. It enrages me when I suggest that people should choose freedom over convenience, and people reject it flippantly citing market forces and supporting the abusive companies that make them. Mischaracterizing and vilifying technology in response to its hijack like this will not serve us in any manner. People already have a negative response when they hear technology. But it's a discipline that we must own, instead of being the just the consumer of. Technology is one of the components we need to fight back against control.
- oulipo2 7mo agoTechnology is *DEFINITELY* a form of control of humans over their environment / nature / peers
- throw4748t858 7mo ago[flagged]
- fc417fc802 7mo ago[flagged]
- MSKJ 7mo ago[flagged]
- fc417fc802 7mo agoThere are many objections that could be raised to both my tone and content there but I don't think "pedantic" is one of them. It's certainly mocking. The subject matter is overly political. It's even plausible that it strays across the line laid down by the HN guidelines, although personally I think it's acceptable given the context. Something about fighting fire with fire.
- TacticalCoder 7mo ago[flagged]
- temp8830 7mo agoThose stories aren't very visible because they are BS. Few people are dumb enough to think than a puppet government set up by an occupying force will improve their lives. Those dancers are either paid actors or not very bright. The double standard I would like to see addressed is this: will any country have enough cojones to boycott the World Cup this year. My guess is no.
- mcphage 7mo ago> Or much more most recently than WWII: not knowing that 1200 civilians were slaughtered by Hamas terrorists, whom palestinians did vote in power. And if you want to go even more recently, check out what the IDF is doing in Gaza.
- vortegne 7mo agoThe crazy double standard is you telling absolutely verifiable lies and feeling completely fine and righteous about it.
- alee08 7mo agoReally? Verifiable lies? Please share your source to help us understand which one to trust. AFAIK, his points are all well-documented and properly referenced on Wikipedia: 1) 1200 people slaughtered, referenced over 450 times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7_attacks 2) Islamic Republic of Iran slaughtered 30 000 unarmed civilians, referenced over 240 times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
- ngcazz 7mo agoLike the other commenter has said, the reason there are no such stories is that they would be hypocritical BS, and I'll add, designed to manufacture consent for unlawful military action against a sovereign nation. The perennially genocidal occupying force controlling all aspects of Palestinian life including forcing them into a subsistence diet, "mowing the lawn" in Gaza every so often, shooting down peaceful unarmed protesters - some of them disabled - and all that before 7/Oct - has no right to complain about terrorism, for it's what it has inflicted on Palestinians for decades.