21–30 of 204 posts
If you make an environment where only those who are willing to face death, imprisonment, or harassment for their ideas are the ones doing the talking, then you make the only voice being heard be one of extreme conviction and cause.
This suggests we should implement mass surveillance of law enforcement personnel. If, as many people assert, the bad behavior of law enforcement is the actions of a minority, then mass surveillance of law enforcement should provide a chilling effect on that minority and result in fewer examples of these abuses. Somehow I don't think that argument would win the day though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mass surveillance is meant to work against anybody and everybody
Yes. But the people who run the institutions will mostly reflect the majority and hence protect their kind. When the society was mostly anti-gay the government machinery was used to hurt these target homosexual groups. Now that society is pro-gay we see government forcing bakers to bake cake for gay weddings. I will not be surprised if the surveillance mechanism would be used to hurt Libertarians and anti-government…
Note: I selected the USSR/KGB not for any particular resemblance to current Western intelligence agencies (much more human intelligence and shotgun mics back then) but rather because they seem to me to be the textbook case of the effects of mass, pervasive surveillance over a long time.
Sort of the inverse conclusion of "Privacy Protects Bothersome People" by Martin Fowler http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html
It has some good examples, for example the one about a journalist exposing corruption in high places but who has a secret (like drug abuse in the example). She could be attacked for this secret in order to discredit her exposé on a totally unrelated matter. I think everyone has secrets of some kind, but even if you are not a journalist, you want journalists like this to exist and be free to conduct their investigations. This is why the argument that "you shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" is bogus.
But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this spiral of silence.
I often find myself self-censoring or abandoning the comment halfway, because I know it will get down voted and it's just a waste of time.
And I'm not talking about trolling or being aggressive or flaming..
Some opinions are just not accepted here on HN and the comment will get down voted fast regardless of how politely or respectfully you try to put it.
This is my 3rd HN account - I've abandoned the others (with lots of karma on them) specifically as a protest for (what I thought were) valid opinions being down voted and dismissed.
For example, mentioning ideas that some tech might be bad or harmful - that people are addicted to devices, that tech is causing widespread pollution - and the likes - are quickly buried, even though in my view these are subjects which we must openly discuss, since they widely affect us all.
Which brings me to the thought: If one of the most intelligent and open minded online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ?
HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…
HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…
Please don't, it is just karma.
> Which brings me to the thought: If one of the most intelligent and open minded online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ?
I think its an example of a problem that is difficult to solve because you want to surface the content that makes the majority happy which becomes naturally self reinforcing.
That said, I'd like to see a platform that surfaces heavily downvoted content that received some upvotes as a hybrid with purely upvoted content. [e.g. +70, -100 is a comment probably worth ranking at +35 because the downvote/upvote split is likely opinion-based rather than purely factual]