4 ms·

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

by 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.
- davidw 13y ago
  > some story about a politician and bananas Here in Italy, politicians have been saying all kinds of hideous, racist things about Italy's first black minister: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/28/world/europe/italy-politics-racism/index.html?hpt=hp_t4 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/28/world/europe/italy-politic... That kind of thing makes my blood boil and I think that, objectively, it's a more important story than the new Bootstrap or most other tech news.
  - igravious 13y ago
    Ciao David, Yeah, that's some ugly stuff. I'm sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt and jumping to the wrong conclusion.
- jfarmer 13y ago
  Nobody is trying to silence you. You're being uncharitable and people are pointing it out. One of David's points is that he doesn't like political discussions on HN because people hear what they want to hear and the discussion becomes, well, uncharitable. And yes, there's obviously stuff you're missing, but it's hard to believe you're being sincere since what you're missing is exactly what David spelled out, quite clearly, in his original comment. If I were to give a title to his original comment it would be "Why I Don't Think We Should Talk About NSA Surveillance on HN Even Though It's an Incredibly Important Conversation." Some folks would rather not have a conversation at all than have an unproductive conversation. The conversations that happen on HN around this issue are unproductive. He's not arguing that those conversations shouldn't take place. He's arguing that HN isn't a good place to have them. To be honest, this conversation is likely not productive and I'm beating myself up a little for continuing it. There's nothing wrong with people like David, Thomas, or anyone else advocating for higher quality discussions. The fact is that the discussions around anything involving politics or the law on HN are (IMO) very low quality and just downright tedious. Nobody is trying to censor anyone. Saying what I just said above isn't trying to censor anyone. You don't need my permission to talk about these issues.
  - igravious 13y ago

by jfarmer 13y ago

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.

davidw 13y ago
> some story about a politician and bananas Here in Italy, politicians have been saying all kinds of hideous, racist things about Italy's first black minister: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/28/world/europe/italy-politics-racism/index.html?hpt=hp_t4 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/28/world/europe/italy-politic... That kind of thing makes my blood boil and I think that, objectively, it's a more important story than the new Bootstrap or most other tech news.
- igravious 13y ago
  Ciao David, Yeah, that's some ugly stuff. I'm sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt and jumping to the wrong conclusion.
jfarmer 13y ago
Nobody is trying to silence you. You're being uncharitable and people are pointing it out. One of David's points is that he doesn't like political discussions on HN because people hear what they want to hear and the discussion becomes, well, uncharitable. And yes, there's obviously stuff you're missing, but it's hard to believe you're being sincere since what you're missing is exactly what David spelled out, quite clearly, in his original comment. If I were to give a title to his original comment it would be "Why I Don't Think We Should Talk About NSA Surveillance on HN Even Though It's an Incredibly Important Conversation." Some folks would rather not have a conversation at all than have an unproductive conversation. The conversations that happen on HN around this issue are unproductive. He's not arguing that those conversations shouldn't take place. He's arguing that HN isn't a good place to have them. To be honest, this conversation is likely not productive and I'm beating myself up a little for continuing it. There's nothing wrong with people like David, Thomas, or anyone else advocating for higher quality discussions. The fact is that the discussions around anything involving politics or the law on HN are (IMO) very low quality and just downright tedious. Nobody is trying to censor anyone. Saying what I just said above isn't trying to censor anyone. You don't need my permission to talk about these issues.
- igravious 13y ago