[lustysocietyorg]

This is HN. Like reddit.

Certain opinions or facts are downvoted without any contradicting facts. Now matter how reasonable the opinion or true the fact is. Especially regarding politics and nutrition. If your comment matches a certain pattern, you get downvoted or upvoted by certain people who never give any facts but who might insult you instead.

PS https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u...

[ardy42]

> Certain opinions or facts are downvoted without any contradicting facts. Now matter how reasonable the opinion or true the fact is.

Not really in this case. Take the comment in question: there's no fact or even much opinion there. It's mostly innuendo. Good moderators will downvote trollish comments, or flamebait, or comments that lead in other unproductive or uninteresting directions, regardless of the "opinions or facts" it contains.

[lustysocietyorg]

What are the facts against Huawei ? Do you have any ?

Here are some facts against the USA and European politicians and secret services and their collusion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-g...

Quote: The spying row has also been stirred by allegations that Merkel’s staff gave the German BND foreign intelligence agency a green light to help the NSA spy on European firms and officials.

https://www.europeansources.info/record/german-intelligence-...

Title: German intelligence employee arrested on suspicion of spying for US on Bundestag NSA committee

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/17/gchq-belgacom-investigat...

Quote: The Belgacom breach sparked outrage in Europe’s political institutions and made global headlines. But Belgium’s effort to identify the spies responsible and hold them accountable faced roadblocks at almost every turn. Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, refused to assist. Prosecutors overseeing the case feared triggering a major diplomatic dispute and were reluctant to pursue it aggressively. Meanwhile, British spies tried to destroy the evidence. “We wanted to show that as a small country, we would not be bullied,” said a source close to the investigation. “But we were fighting against two big cyberarmies from the U.K. and the U.S. We knew we could never win this.”

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u...

Quote: The consultant Florian Kling, formerly a cyber officer and public relations expert for the German Armed Forces, told Stoltenberg on Twitter : "Explain why the civil network is important to NATO, how NATO / US would communicate through these channels "It's not a military or landline core, and should not I trust our crypto capabilities?" Other military officials also see this as follows: "Our intelligence services work together excellently - classified information is guaranteed not to be transported via a 4G or 5G network, but rather in completely different ways," said Patrick Sensburg on Deutschlandradio . The CDU deputy and lieutenant colonel of the reserve sits in the intelligence committee Parlamentarisches Kontrollgremium (PKGr). "This is about the exercise of economic power," emphasized Professor Sensburg.

[ardy42]

>>> Certain opinions or facts are downvoted without any contradicting facts. Now matter how reasonable the opinion or true the fact is.

>> Not really in this case. Take the comment in question: there's no fact or even much opinion there. It's mostly innuendo.

> What are the facts against Huawei ? Do you have any ?

What about Huawei? I was talking about ElBarto's comment, as is everyone in this entire thread. He was just scolded by a mod about his conduct, so I don't think my take was too far off.

[lustysocietyorg]

I do not remember anymore what ElBarto wrote and it is censored now.

But it was related to the boycott of Huawei. It was reasonable like all other good critical comments that were downvoted to a grey font color at that time. I replied to the poster who wondered why ElBarto's post was downvoted because there was nothing wrong with it when I read it.

Besides, my comment was downvoted too without any valid criticism and thus it was validated.

[ardy42]

> I do not remember anymore what ElBarto wrote and it is censored now.

> I replied to the poster who wondered why ElBarto's post was downvoted because there was nothing wrong with it when I read it.

There was something wrong with it, but you didn't understand it. That's fine, but understand that things you can't perceive still exist. Lots of people found fault with it, including a mod. Don't you think that could mean something actually was wrong with it?

However, if you've already forgotten it, maybe we should drop it?

> But it was related to the boycott of Huawei.

Barely and unproductively, as I outlined above.

> Besides, my comment was downvoted too without any valid criticism and thus it was validated.

It's common practice here to downvote comments that complain about downvotes, because they don't actually add to the discussion. Complaining about voting is frowned upon.

[lustysocietyorg]

> It's common practice here to downvote comments that complain about downvotes, because they don't actually add to the discussion. Complaining about voting is frowned upon.

I answered a question.

Downvoting without giving a reason is lazy selfish cowardly trolling without contributing anything useful.

A downvote is even worse than an insult because:

- an insult shows the mindset and the stupidity of the insulting person.

- as intended, a downvote leads to deranking of the comment and thus "eradication" for many other readers who do not care to read downvoted comments or the last comments of many.

[ElBarto]

You are proving his point by being so dishonest and insulting me, and downvoting everything.

And you guys are the ones taking things in unproductive directions by refusing to address or discuss the point of my initial comment (and you even go as far as pretending not to understand the point or to misrepresent it), which is American influence over its allies.

[jamesrcole]

I wasn't pretending. You overestimate your communication skills. Have a look at your original comment and how much it is assuming that isn't being communicated to its audience.

What is this conversation supposed to be? Is it a play on lines from a movie or something? Who is it meant to be between? Who does the first speaker represent? What about the second? What is the context of the conversation? Why does that conversation relfect something true about the real-world situation? Is the conversation meant to be some kind of metaphor?

Because you know the point you're trying to make, the meaning of your comment is clear to you. But to someone who doesn't start out knowing what that point is meant to be, they don't have anything to go on.

[martin_a]

You can't grasp the meaning of a metaphor, put it in context with the headline and a fictional dialog and think that his communication skills are bad?

Maybe yours are.

German spy agencies are known to work with/for US intelligence without any hesitations. There was little or rather no consequences at all following the disclosures made by Snowden, although even chancellor Merkels smartphone was wiretapped.

This history (see, it's more about knowing something about politics and history) has lead to the impression that Germany will mostly follow American pressure blindly.

Coupled with the total lack of solid reasons not to use Huawei, this thing just looks like a "don't buy from the Chinese"-request from the US and Cisco.

With such obscure things like former BND chief Schindler saying that Huawei tech is "one and a half to two years more advanced than ours" [0] and that he fears there would be dependence on Chinese tech (and not on US tech anymore). This is what it's all about. It's not about security, it's about money. As always.

[0] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/5G-Frueher-BND-Chef-...

[jamesrcole]

It's telling that you think it was obviously a metaphor. It was obviously a fictional dialogue, but so many things relating to that dialogue (as mentioned in my previous comment) were unclear.

Have you heard of "the curse of knowledge"?

Assuming all the details in your explanation are correct, if someone already knows those details what are they going to get from your comment? And if they don't know those details, how are they supposed to understand your comment?

[ElBarto]

Stop digging, please. It's unclear only to you.

[ElBarto]

Spot on, which is sad.