Right… why do you think they spent so much time intentionally rigging the courts with illegitimate judges? They’ve been planning a non-democratic takeover of the country FOR A LONG FUCKING TIME. They are just more open about it now.
The EU has a plan to replace all of that in the pipeline already. That isn’t new, they are already like 5 years into it and I think looking to launch it next year. That one I actually don’t think is going to be a problem at all as a lot of it is already built and basically ready to go.
Absolutely nobody needs a fucking subscription model funded by VCs to shame them on a daily basis while you steal their personal data and use it to train a fucking AI.
But instead of hitting the hide button or just not clicking on it because you know you won’t like it you instead try to make sure that nobody can see it or talk about it?
There are plenty of websites intended for political discussions. HN, rather explicitly, is not one of them.
I could write about how political discussions reduce the quality (and go against the purpose) of this site, but thankfully Dang has already covered that, so I'll just link to him instead.
On a final note, I'll add that responses like these are a great example of the general degradation of discussion norms that occurs in these types of threads.
So just leave and take your weird fucking content policing nonsense with you and let adults have a conversation in peace. Don’t you have some kids skateboarding on the sidewalk to yell at instead?
Edit: I see in your comment history that YOU have no problems in talking about politics on here… so it’s just everybody else that’s the problem? Do I have that right? Or just anyone you disagree with? And yet you felt the need to dress up your cowardice as some kind of moral argument. You’re exactly the kind of person I thought you were from the start it turns out. Congratulations.
It's not my "weird fucking content policing", it's literally the stated guidelines for this site -- reiterated repeatedly by the lead moderator, as I linked.
Since you're in such disagreement with the rules of this site, maybe, rather than trying to change them, you should take your comments elsewhere.
You’re misrepresenting what the content policy says (making it appear to favor your position more strongly than it does), as I believe a political article that engages intellectual curiosity should not be flagged according to the spirit of HN (which is subjective, of course, and leaves a lot of room for biased implementations even when someone believes they are not being biased).
It’s not an easy problem to solve and is hard to balance fairly, so I think your painting of the content policy as being crystal clear is a misrepresentation that isn’t properly taking into account the subjectivity of what is viewed as political and what counts as intellectually stimulating to different HN users (as it seems if something is “interesting” then that tends to override the “political” in many instances on the home page, and is entirely subjective).
The application can be messy, but the policy itself is clear [1]. My position is that you can feel free to argue specific cases, but if someone's against the concept of moderating political stories, then that's directly at odds with the stated policy of this site and they would be better off posting elsewhere.
[1] > "I know there are many users (actually a small-but-vocal minority of users) who complain that flags are being abused to suppress political stories. What these complainants never seem to take into account is that we want most political stories to be flagged on HN, for a critical reason: if they weren't, then HN would turn into a current-affairs site, and that would not be HN at all." (-dang)
It’s already extremely clear that you don’t actually give a shit about the rules because you certainly don’t seem to make any effort to follow them yourselves. As someone else pointed out you’re just lying and misrepresenting things to stop others from talking, I really couldn’t have much less respect for someone like that.
I flag all irrelevant political posts I see, regardless of political valence -- as per the guideline in question -- do you?
If you don't have anything substantive to say on the topic and want to keep making personal attacks instead, feel free, but I don't think it helps your point.
It’s not a personal attack like it’s some disagreement. I’m simply accurately pointing out that the reasons you publicly state here have no resemblance to your actual activity on the website. You’re a dishonest individual whose hobbies seem to include policing what random strangers are allowed to talk about on the internet.
And I'm simply pointing out that you've not actually yet commented anything substantive. All four of your comments here have included some sort of swipe at me, and none of them actual engage with the topic at hand beyond (charitably) the first one. Do you actually have opinions about the rules here that you wanted to share?
I'm not one to dig through comment history to make a point; but if I did, I'm guessing it would look like more of the same.
So, unless you have an actual argument to make about the moderation guidelines here, I don't think this conversation is adding any value. I'm not interested in trading swipes with a stranger.
The title accurately describes what happened without any sense of editorial sensationalism. The title doesn’t match word for word with what the original had but that’s not even close to the same thing you’re complaining about.
Try to use some critical thinking here before immediately jumping into conspiracy theories. Maybe start with reading the actual post rather than just seeing Google and geolocation in the same sentence and forming your opinion based on that.
I don't think anyone can give Google the benefit of doubt after Manifest v3, Privacy Sandbox/FLoC, Web Environment Integration, and Android developer verification etc, all of which faced strong opposition, some of which they abandoned. That's easily four just from the last few years. See the pattern? On the surface, they talk about security and privacy (and they do, to some extent), but at the core they will benefit Google's various businesses and their dominant positions while hurting the ecosystem and competition. Honestly I can't even think of another big tech that acts in such a bad faith.
Not to mention Google's history of pushing some non-standard behavior into Chrome single handedly to make it the de facto behavior, ignoring voices questioning the motivation, timeline and technical implementation. They are discussed here on HN and everywhere else and easy to find.
Coming back to this, my response is the same: the status quo works, why change it? Similar to how Mozilla responds to replacing user agent with "Hints API" nonsense. I don't want another way to get my location, because I already block all location requests. Google wants site owners to get location more easily out of unsuspecting users. I can't see how this is good for anyone but Google and its friends.
Unfortunately extending benefit of the doubt towards US tech companies is a luxury not everybody can or wants to afford. There is a clear pattern of enshittification of their products.
As you assume that GP has not read the post, how about you?
Because google clearly state that the "high denial rates" are a problem, but their framing of the issue is that the users have a "context gap" which needs to be fixed. Because they are convinced that even though users have decided against geolocation sharing with a specific website they want to get prompted about it over and over again as part of the organic interface of the website. And if they un-block it once over the new interface then the previous block will be forgotten and the permission will forever be granted.
A solution respecting their users would be to allow geolocation for duration of the browser tab, but that is clearly not in line with their data collection goals for their advertisers.
A permission request every browser session also wouldn't be in line with the needs of the average end user, and would train them to hit accept on any prompt that arises, as if they didn't do that enough anyway.
The moderation on this site is really such garbage. Filled with all kinds of weird and subtle manipulation, almost never openly acknowledged and they are more than happy to gaslight you when you confront them about it.
The mods absolutely endorse it though so in that sense it very much is them. They tend to be extremely dishonest and evasive when confronted directly about it but I mean anyone who has an account here can see with their own lying eyes that this happens multiple times a day, every day and it’s simply not plausible that it’s anything else other than something they support.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If the system did something different from its purpose, they would change it. I'm sure it's also intentional there's no vouch button for posts. This will change once every high quality post is flagged to death.
I suspect dead usually means shadow ban, at least for comments, and vouch is a way to selectively show through community support a high value comment from an otherwise abusive user. Where flagged is overt, already applies just to that one comment, and vouching in that case wouldn't really make logical sense. Unless we want people to be able to wage flag wars.
The gap between the rules as they are officially written down and the rules as they exist in practice is so wide that it’s basically unrecognisable when you start putting them side by side.
The mods will just gaslight you as well about the entire thing. I know for some unknown reason it’s considered bad form to have anything other than a high opinion of the job they do but I think they do a bad job. I’m not saying it’s not a hard job or anything, I just think they are actively bad at it.
reply