4 ms·

If you care deeply about privacy on the internet why don't you want to follow and participate in the discussions here concerning the unfolding drama about the e

If you care deeply about privacy on the internet why don't you want to follow and participate in the discussions here concerning the unfolding drama about the erosion of privacy on the internet? I want to do a bit more than just read about this topic. I want to discuss it with my hacker/geek/nerd/techie peers and that sure ain't gonna happen in the comment section of the Guardian website. I also want to do more than discuss though, I also want to change things. I'd like to help out a bit maybe. Donate to the EFF or something, anything. Witness the news about Tox - I'm not gonna hear about that on the Guardian. I suppose I could go back to /. ^shudder^ In what way is HN censored?

whiddershins 13y ago
PG (and others) moderate it, which is a polite word for censoring. He is a member of the .1%
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  This kind of censorship is not bad. It's needed. That's why we have a word "moderation", to distinguish that process from a similar one (but stronger), with negative connotations.
- igravious 13y ago
  I understand that. In what way, is what I'm asking.
  - davidw 13y ago
    He/they sometimes kill stories that they don't feel belong on the site, or don't add anything to it.
regal 13y ago
Perhaps we should have a separate section or tab on here for political news if it's very important to some people. I, for one, like HN because it doesn't have all the usual political news nonsense that mainstream news has. The privacy debate is great and all, but it doesn't substantially help my or anyone's lives on here. In 400 years, it's not going to matter whether the NSA read your emails or didn't read your emails. And realistically, reading another article about Edward Snowden impersonating Tom Hanks in a Russian airport terminal isn't going to push the meter toward or away greater privacy an ounce. However, if you find informative, non-buried-under-political-stuff articles on HN that contribute to you building your business empire that changes the world for the better a little bit... that probably will still matter in 400 years.
tptacek 13y ago
Your argument here seems to be that if he believes what he says he does, he shouldn't be saying other things that you don't expect him to say. If I'm reading you correctly, your comment is a nice encapsulation of David's points about politics on HN.
- igravious 13y ago
  If I could parse your first sentence and wade past the snark in your second I might be able to come up with a cogent and fitting response. But I can't.
  - jfarmer 13y ago
    I'll translate. Thomas is restating your argument thus: if David "cared about privacy on the internet" then he'd be eager to have the conversation here. Since he actively objects to having the conversation here, he must not care. If that's an accurate representation of your argument then it's a little disingenuous. David's comment was six bullet points explaining why he doesn't want to have the conversation here even though he cares a lot about online privacy. You don't even acknowledge that, which makes for a frustrating and counterproductive conversation. And, well, that was exactly David's point. P.S., you kind of did the disingenuous thing again when you didn't take the time to comprehend Thomas' comment. It was perfectly understandable.
    - igravious 13y ago
      This is beginning to seem like a concerted effort to silence me. If you read his comment you'll see that David did indeed say that he cares deeply about politics. But in fairness, by way of example, he mentions some story about a politician and bananas? A story which seems strictly political. I don't think merely political stories should make the front page of HN. I'm only talking about the online (i.e. tech-related, techies built and understand and are subverting the internet) privacy (i.e. liberty related) issue here. I see it intimately linked with the free software issue. I can't see why if you we talk about one why we can't talk about the other. What about all the patent issues? About all the copyright issues? Can we not talk about them either? They are political issues and yet they are topics that come up again and again in the hacker community: reverse engineering protocols, DMCA, torrenting, software patents. Sorry to labour this but to me it is important. My possible conclusions are that David (and others): (1) do not see the online privacy issue as a tech issue and/or (2) only see it as a political issue and/or (3) do not care about it as an issue and/or (4) are ok-ish with mass surveillance and/or (5) have reached saturation point on it and/or ...? I jumped to conclusion 3. I don't know why. Again, I see it as a tech issue, not solely political -- I think that it is an extremely, world alteringly important issue -- we should not be able to reach saturation point on it, it's too important.

whiddershins 13y ago

PG (and others) moderate it, which is a polite word for censoring. He is a member of the .1%

TeMPOraL 13y ago
This kind of censorship is not bad. It's needed. That's why we have a word "moderation", to distinguish that process from a similar one (but stronger), with negative connotations.
igravious 13y ago
I understand that. In what way, is what I'm asking.
- davidw 13y ago
  He/they sometimes kill stories that they don't feel belong on the site, or don't add anything to it.

regal 13y ago

Perhaps we should have a separate section or tab on here for political news if it's very important to some people. I, for one, like HN because it doesn't have all the usual political news nonsense that mainstream news has. The privacy debate is great and all, but it doesn't substantially help my or anyone's lives on here. In 400 years, it's not going to matter whether the NSA read your emails or didn't read your emails. And realistically, reading another article about Edward Snowden impersonating Tom Hanks in a Russian airport terminal isn't going to push the meter toward or away greater privacy an ounce. However, if you find informative, non-buried-under-political-stuff articles on HN that contribute to you building your business empire that changes the world for the better a little bit... that probably will still matter in 400 years.

tptacek 13y ago

Your argument here seems to be that if he believes what he says he does, he shouldn't be saying other things that you don't expect him to say. If I'm reading you correctly, your comment is a nice encapsulation of David's points about politics on HN.

igravious 13y ago
If I could parse your first sentence and wade past the snark in your second I might be able to come up with a cogent and fitting response. But I can't.
- jfarmer 13y ago
  I'll translate. Thomas is restating your argument thus: if David "cared about privacy on the internet" then he'd be eager to have the conversation here. Since he actively objects to having the conversation here, he must not care. If that's an accurate representation of your argument then it's a little disingenuous. David's comment was six bullet points explaining why he doesn't want to have the conversation here even though he cares a lot about online privacy. You don't even acknowledge that, which makes for a frustrating and counterproductive conversation. And, well, that was exactly David's point. P.S., you kind of did the disingenuous thing again when you didn't take the time to comprehend Thomas' comment. It was perfectly understandable.
  - igravious 13y ago
    This is beginning to seem like a concerted effort to silence me. If you read his comment you'll see that David did indeed say that he cares deeply about politics. But in fairness, by way of example, he mentions some story about a politician and bananas? A story which seems strictly political. I don't think merely political stories should make the front page of HN. I'm only talking about the online (i.e. tech-related, techies built and understand and are subverting the internet) privacy (i.e. liberty related) issue here. I see it intimately linked with the free software issue. I can't see why if you we talk about one why we can't talk about the other. What about all the patent issues? About all the copyright issues? Can we not talk about them either? They are political issues and yet they are topics that come up again and again in the hacker community: reverse engineering protocols, DMCA, torrenting, software patents. Sorry to labour this but to me it is important. My possible conclusions are that David (and others): (1) do not see the online privacy issue as a tech issue and/or (2) only see it as a political issue and/or (3) do not care about it as an issue and/or (4) are ok-ish with mass surveillance and/or (5) have reached saturation point on it and/or ...? I jumped to conclusion 3. I don't know why. Again, I see it as a tech issue, not solely political -- I think that it is an extremely, world alteringly important issue -- we should not be able to reach saturation point on it, it's too important.