Disappointed how quickly this post and the related one got flagged and in the other case was dead. I find it fascinating to read and don’t think either are necessarily deserving that? But if it does violate a rule or something greater, I would love to be educated.
And not sure if Dang will read this but I am curious the right balance here. The topic is ongoing and sensitive but something about posts getting instantly flagged sits wrong with me. At least when I don’t see how the contents were immoral or wrong. At the very least I would hope the HN community could help educate me on why it’s right or wrong.
Only brining it up because I would like to discuss the topic and not create a flame war in the process.
Deranking is different than dead though right? The other post was live for maybe a minute. I get the flame war prevention but this feels more like individuals killing ideas they don’t agree with. I don’t have skin in the game. Just curious.
No, that's not what "targeted" means, you're just making that up. In this context, targeted means he was attacked because he was in some list/satisfied some criterion.
That is a great writeup. Shame https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572675 wasn’t given some front page time. It seems squarely in the "new phenomenon" territory of the guidelines, since tech investors coordinating to fire employees is historically unique.
I am Jewish, appalled by Paul’s tweets, but lazy and don’t do anything about it.
I fail to see how other Jewish people, that are similarly appalled, but more activist in nature about trying to work together to push back on rising antisemitism, is anything nefarious.
"I fail to see how other Russian people, who are similarly appalled but more activist in nature about trying to work together to push back on rising anti-russian sentiment, is anything nefarious."
"I fail to see how other Chinese people, who are similarly appalled but more activist in nature about trying to work together to push back on rising anti-chinese sentiment, is anything nefarious."
"I fail to see how other Saudi people, who are similarly appalled but more activist in nature about trying to work together to push back on rising anti-saudi sentiment, is anything nefarious."
...Once a state actor is involved, you have become the devil you swore to fight.
HN is one of the rare places online where the much needed discussions could be facilitated for the welfare of all. In this case, the information control implications might overweight the political narrative and be relevant for the people inclined to the truth.
Free speech may not be the relevant criticism here, but there's... somewhat of a discomfort of a government (if admittedly foreign) agency calling out specific individuals. I know we're in the era of terminally online politicians, but this crosses some sort of professionalism boundary?
EDIT: Which is to say, it's not illegal or anything, but I'm sending a frowning emoji.
I'm not sure the two can be properly compared. I was going to say it's the same, then I thought maybe it was a little less concerning, but now I'm really not sure.
I share your concerns, but maybe we should concentrate on this particular issue when it comes to this particular comment section, because simply bringing this up isn't really adding to the conversation.
"dog whistle" is such a nasty concept. You can accuse anyone of anything you associate their vocabulary with. The only limit is your imagination and the accused can't really falsify it.
>The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation.
I view the phrase as "I can't find something to attack in what ideological opponent said, so I'm going to pretend that what he said actually means something else, and attack that instead".
Disappointed how quickly this post and the related one got flagged and in the other case was dead. I find it fascinating to read and don’t think either are necessarily deserving that? But if it does violate a rule or something greater, I would love to be educated.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38571758
@dang can step in and override the flaggers (which he should IMO).
Dang is aware since he has already commented in this thread. He is complicit in allowing this to be suppressed.
2 replies →
And not sure if Dang will read this but I am curious the right balance here. The topic is ongoing and sensitive but something about posts getting instantly flagged sits wrong with me. At least when I don’t see how the contents were immoral or wrong. At the very least I would hope the HN community could help educate me on why it’s right or wrong.
Only brining it up because I would like to discuss the topic and not create a flame war in the process.
All my comments here are getting insta-downvoted. Which is just weird.
1 reply →
There's a comments-to-votes ratio that triggers deranking, IIRC. Flamewar prevention.
That's not it; there are many upvotes and not many comments on both of those submissions. Honestly, I'm disappointed at the admins.
2 replies →
Deranking is different than dead though right? The other post was live for maybe a minute. I get the flame war prevention but this feels more like individuals killing ideas they don’t agree with. I don’t have skin in the game. Just curious.
2 replies →
[flagged]
"targeted" sounds like they were trying to compromise his account. Instead they were just trying to "ridicule" him.
No, that's not what "targeted" means, you're just making that up. In this context, targeted means he was attacked because he was in some list/satisfied some criterion.
When I saw the headline I interpreted "targeted by IDF" as some attempt to compromise his account.
If you can't crack their SSH key, you DDoS the site or their provider
If you can't compromise his account you create a shit-storm or spew fake info to discredit
Also, this headline has almost nothing to do with his Twitter account. Twitter was simply the medium for message.
A great write-up related to that:
https://jackpoulson.substack.com/p/inside-the-pro-israel-inf...
That is a great writeup. Shame https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572675 wasn’t given some front page time. It seems squarely in the "new phenomenon" territory of the guidelines, since tech investors coordinating to fire employees is historically unique.
Discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38567507
I don't understand how stringing along assertion after assertion makes a great write-up. This is the substack version of gossip.
So why this is flagged? Paul is a critical founder for many companies. Knowing that someone is trashing his rep is very important to many others here.
[flagged]
Paul is trashing his rep all on his own.
I am Jewish, appalled by Paul’s tweets, but lazy and don’t do anything about it.
I fail to see how other Jewish people, that are similarly appalled, but more activist in nature about trying to work together to push back on rising antisemitism, is anything nefarious.
"I fail to see how other Russian people, who are similarly appalled but more activist in nature about trying to work together to push back on rising anti-russian sentiment, is anything nefarious."
"I fail to see how other Chinese people, who are similarly appalled but more activist in nature about trying to work together to push back on rising anti-chinese sentiment, is anything nefarious."
"I fail to see how other Saudi people, who are similarly appalled but more activist in nature about trying to work together to push back on rising anti-saudi sentiment, is anything nefarious."
...Once a state actor is involved, you have become the devil you swore to fight.
1 reply →
All he’s done is point out that Gaza civilians are being decimated and you’re appalled by those tweets?
Kinda telling on yourself there tbh.
8 replies →
https://nitter.net/paulg/status/1733146138226614465
HN is one of the rare places online where the much needed discussions could be facilitated for the welfare of all. In this case, the information control implications might overweight the political narrative and be relevant for the people inclined to the truth.
> HN is one of the rare places online where the much needed discussions could be facilitated for the welfare of all.
Brah. HN is a tech posting newsfeed hosted by a startup incubator. There are some very clear biases here, esp. to making a fuck-ton of money.
It is also wayyyyy behind other social media sites for stopping obvious spam and shillbots.
ain't no welfare of all goin on here.
Maybe it's used to be behind Twitter in stopping spam and shillbots but now ...
There needs to be a function on this site where people can vote to unflag things, this is just ridiculous.
There is, if you have enough karma there's a 'vouch' option that becomes available to express support for flagged posts.
Ah, I thought that was for dead posts only. That's good to know.
1 reply →
blowback, the social media strategy
Ugh, I'd been avoiding twitter for obvious reasons lately. I'd forgotten how awful the bluecheck-reply slurry was since they started selling those.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Care to elaborate? No one's right to speech has been affected here; not pg's nor the IDF's. Free speech has never been the right to not be trolled.
Free speech may not be the relevant criticism here, but there's... somewhat of a discomfort of a government (if admittedly foreign) agency calling out specific individuals. I know we're in the era of terminally online politicians, but this crosses some sort of professionalism boundary?
EDIT: Which is to say, it's not illegal or anything, but I'm sending a frowning emoji.
1 reply →
IDF is not a person. Does 2FA apply to states and corporations? I see this more as manipulation and misinformation rather than free speech.
Paul Graham's hasn't, you mean. The IDF is not a person; it has no rights.
4 replies →
[flagged]
Lol why was this flagged?!
[flagged]
Is this worse than having people working for the State Department tell Twitter than your posts shouldn't be seen and cannot be "liked"?
I'm not sure the two can be properly compared. I was going to say it's the same, then I thought maybe it was a little less concerning, but now I'm really not sure.
I share your concerns, but maybe we should concentrate on this particular issue when it comes to this particular comment section, because simply bringing this up isn't really adding to the conversation.
It's the same type of evil, and trying to rank them won't do any good.
State actors should get the fuck off our web. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to.
Only if you paid money to have your posts seen and liked, and then Twitter restricts your posts anyways.
We don’t yet know the extent of US State Department involvement.
Wait, isn't "well well well" a dog whistle these days that edgelord people use online? Am I spending too much time on TikTok?
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2023/08/21/well-well-well-meaning...
Yes, you are. That article spends a lot of words avoiding any explanation of what "well, well, well" is supposedly saying.
"dog whistle" is such a nasty concept. You can accuse anyone of anything you associate their vocabulary with. The only limit is your imagination and the accused can't really falsify it.
Agreed. As someone else said:
>The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation.
I view the phrase as "I can't find something to attack in what ideological opponent said, so I'm going to pretend that what he said actually means something else, and attack that instead".
1 reply →