Live data from Hacker News

Is surveillance risk chilling your online speech?

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Is surveillance risk chilling your online speech?

#71
100% yes, it has. I used to post under my real name, but when Trump was re-elected I deleted all my old social media accounts and created this pseudonym. Even still, I don't say everything I want to say because if the government wants to find my real identity it wouldn't be hard for them to get it.

Look at NPSM-7 [1], which basically says anyone who doesn't like capitalism or Christianity is likely a terrorist. Look at that Texas judge who threw a guy in prison for 30 years simply for moving a box of political contraband [2]. Look at the state department's recent report that labels everything from the DSA to the Black Lives Matter movement as secret agents of Cuba [3].

It's pretty clear that this administration is bent on throwing its political opponents in prison, whether they be actual politicians, protestors, or just bloggers.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSPM-7 2: https://freedom.press/issues/texas-man-sentenced-to-30-years... 3: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Cuba-Report...

Re: Is surveillance risk chilling your online speech?

#75
post #69

It's not formal institutions, it's the hate mob. And for things that might seriously attract the ire of people who consider political violence a positive good, there's always TOR.

ICE and the FBI are pretty formal institutions.

Yeah, but I'm not afraid of them, I'm afraid of the hate mob.

Re: Is surveillance risk chilling your online speech?

#77
post #3

A few years ago, you would've been banned for questioning the results of the U.S. election. And this was when "progressives" were in charge. If anything, you're more free to "express yourself" now.

You're free to express most things except the things they really don't like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSPM-7 Quote from the NSPM-7: > There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fa…

"anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity"

It's a good thing I love Baseball, McDonald's and God, yessiree.

Re: Is surveillance risk chilling your online speech?

#78

In general, no. But I'd never make anything but anonymous throwaway posts here because this is the one place that doesn't let me delete my posts. (I know you can make manual requests, but if it's not self-service I can't rely on it.)

You do understand everything is continuously sucked up everywhere right ? (I mean the pentagon mysteriously unaccounted billions have to go somewhere...)

Re: Is surveillance risk chilling your online speech?

#79

The "less likely to express" isn't from surveillance, but from the professional shills that moderate every site which makes it worthless to put any effort into posting anything because it will just be removed with no justification.

Regardless of whether that is true or not... Why not start your own site then?

Re: Is surveillance risk chilling your online speech?

#80
No, not a government or corporate surveillance.

But a modern platform consolidation, zero tolerance practices and shitty spaghetti code written by a cheapest contractor - does.

Remember good old days of "forums"? Apart from some of the outliers on both ends (both cesspools and invite only elitists) a majority of the forums had this concept of warnings. So a user may have been rude or broke a rule or just got unlucky, he get a warning. Then maybe additional warnings. Or next there is "TEMPORARY" ban (absolutely alien concept nowadays), for a few days, then a few months, then a year. And it was actually possible to come back after a year long ban and see that the admins honored their own rules and did indeed unban you. I know a friend who was a frequent posted on a city automotive forum who served two year-long bans and he still posts there, soon it will be 3 decades or so :) . And the list of issuers, bans, dates and ban reason was usually public for all.

So all of that culture of being nice and polite is gone now. There are no warnings anymore (well, HN is tiny little exception, even then warnings are informal here, no automation like it was done in the previous century). Bans are instant and permanent, there are no temporary bans anywhere anymore, except for some deliberately gloating bans, like "you are banned until 2126, haha". And in case a discussion platform is owned by a corpo providing other services, they will ban user everywhere too. And mods are often using some crappy code to autoban users based on some primitive pattern matching. Write an ambiguously interpreted comment and poof, off you go. Some platforms even officially allow report abuse, like FB where a bot owner can take down any post, regardless of its content.

Ironically, the lack of niceness culture and extra harsh extra fast punishments didn't lead to the better talking spaces. Instead people are now using hundreds of throwaway twink accounts and now they don't moderate themselves. Why would they, the punishment to a rabid foaming at the mouth crazy user registered 1 day ago and to a old timer registered 15 years ago and who said some less radical comment in a latest political discourse or doubted some newest fad or whatever, maybe he was simply genuinely mistaken as happens to all - well, the punishment is the same. So why bother? Why write 4 paragraphs of reasoning to explain why entity A is bad in some specific way and the reasons for that, when user can just fire off a one liner hate message and get the same results? And so on.

As a weirdo who never uses twink accounts I'm in a minority and by old habits I still post as if I'm on some oldschool sane forums, but I do often stop and rewrite parts, to avoid being automodded into oblivion. And I certainly don't post on FB or Instagram or YT or other platforms anymore. The collateral damage over there would be catastrophic.

Post reply on HN