4 ms·
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7481111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7481111 Here's one of them. I could spit through dozens of comments and put a
by pearjuice 13y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7481111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7481111
Here's one of them. I could spit through dozens of comments and put a whole list of comments here to satisfy your request further - but would it make a difference? It's well known (and probably verified research can confirm) that vote-systems adhere to common denominator circle-jerking.
- tptacek 13y agoThere's "out of the echo chamber", and then there's "fully out of the scope of HN", and debating the merits of Turkey's suppression of the Internet vis a vis the Internet as a conduit for western propaganda is "fully out of the scope of HN". There are good places to have that debate, and HN just isn't one of them.
- ballard 13y agoYup. It's not a geopolitics IRC chat. Only the tech aspects of evading censorship would qualify but only if they were novel.
- dang 13y agoThat comment was (a) not substantive, and (b) inflammatory. It was appropriate to downvote it. I'd guess it got more downvotes for being a (very) minority view than it otherwise would have, but that doesn't mean it didn't deserve them. By "not substantive" I do not mean false, but rather that the signal-to-noise ratio of a comment containing many grand, unsupported claims is low. Since you don't want to provide us with dozens of examples, how about picking, say, three that have the highest signal-noise ratio of the lot, and weren't uncivil? I'd like to see those. I know such comments exist, because I see them, yet the people charging HN with groupthink never seem to cite any clear examples.