[skinkestek]

> It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe".

Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN:

tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and it might be of interest to everyone here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929

[dragonwriter]

> tptacek shared some interesting research

No, he didn’t. He shared the subjective impression which led him to stop the research, but not the results, or even the methodology used to classify content.

[rayiner]

Wait? We have a a “rep” on Twitter? HN is like one of the most civil places on the Internet insofar as ones where any debate of substance happens.

[pjc50]

Mention sexism in tech and it'll get flagged off the front page almost immediately, because that's one of the issues where the third rail is too close to HN's own posters that substantial debate is impossible.

Also, civility is not the same as not having abhorrent ideas written up in nice language.

[skinkestek]

I've another explanation:

different groups of people flags those for different reasons.

- some flag them because they want to keep all politics out of HN

- some just don't like people arguing

- some flag them because of that guy who invariably will bring out JD as an example that sexism goes the other way too (or to say that it mostly goes the other way even)

- some flag them because from their point of view it looks like women have an easier life in IT in men. (This is not generally correct, but to someone who realizes that there are serious KPIs, bonuses and pats on the back to be had for recruiting women in certain companies it might easily look that way. The flip side being they are often treated like decoration instead of like engineers.)

There are some really big issues to tackle in this space but so many people are so busy accusing the other side while simultaneously shutting their ears that I too will soon start flagging them. I'll also admit to having been part of this problem (the shouting part of it before.)

- someone who was always well liked with everyone but is slowly admitting that the other side had some valid points as well.

[leereeves]

Politics of almost any kind will be flagged quickly here, even if it's tech related.

[tptacek]

Yes; just search Twitter for "orange site".

[skinkestek]

That was not the point of linking to that, but it seems so.

[krageon]

HN is pretty well known to be a cesspool of terrible far-right ideas. What's more, they're not mocked or booed off but enabled. You don't endear yourself to the general public by doing so.

[dang]

Everyone with a strong political commitment sees HN as dominated by the opposite politics to their own. This is an illusion. For everyone saying what you're saying, someone else is saying this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23396632. Both statements are false; it's just a large enough and chaotic enough dataset that you can find examples of anything—and the ones you dislike the most will be the ones you remember the most (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

For sure terrible comments appear. The false part is to say that they're representative of the community—they're not. Commenters with opposite views notice opposite examples, claim those are the representative ones, and are just as wrong. I've mentioned just one counterexample chosen at random, but could as easily link to 50, and another 50 on your side.

Most such posts get downvoted and/or flagged, though it takes a while for the immune system to work. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23686864

[leereeves]

"Far right" according to the far-left echo chamber that is Twitter, perhaps. One should never confuse the people who dominate social media with the general public.

[iron0013]

He made a claim, but he didn’t actually share any of his research or data.

[skinkestek]

I'm fairly certain he can stand for it.

Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that.

Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?

[dragonwriter]

> Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems

While in the modern US there is a common (and increasingly strong) correlation on average between political attitudes toward race and gender and the left/right economic axis, there is nothing strongly inherent about that. Racism and sexism on the left are not at all unheard of.

(I don't see any evidence that tptacek is a racist or sexist, I just don't think “hey, he's left-of-American-center, so if he says HN is clear of racism/sexism, it must be the case” is even approximately a reasonable position.)

But, in any case, his own description seems to repeatedly focus on explicit misogynistic or white supremacists content, so even were we to take it as gospel it is perfectly consistent with HN being filled with the kind of urbane circumlocution that is frequently used to provide a thin veneer of not-all-that-plausible-in-aggregate deniability over bigoted attitudes.

[baddox]

I don't agree that the validity of his claim depends in any way on his character, reputation, or personal political views. The validity of a claim is independent of any attribute of the person making the claim. The only way to make any judgment about the claim is to see the data and methodology.

[erichocean]

> Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?

HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last…

In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN.

dang does a good job keeping people on-message politically (and I'm sure tptacek did as well), but being "racist-adjacent"—which HN absolutely is [1]—isn't a long-term viable position.

Someday soon I expect the racist-adjacent user-banning to kick into high gear on HN (like SSC did) but it will be too little, too late. Eventually, HN will inevitably shut down—and it might be sooner than any of us think.

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/

[1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033

[paulchap]

Linking to one flagged comment from a green account doesn't really support your position that the entire community is "racist-adjacent". Neither does linking to a blog post that claims Scott shut SSC down to protect his patients support your position that he did it to evade justice.

[pyrale]

It is never the entire community. In situations where this kind of drifts occur, most of the group are usually people with little knowledge about activist dynamics and unwilling to consider that people they know/trust may adhere to or have done things they consider abhorrent. Therefore, they tend do be blindsided about stuff that, in hindsight, was obvious.

This is likely why above poster says "racist-adjacent" and not racist-friendly.

I have no particular opinion on HN, but I have noticed that the tech community in general is usually not the most politics-aware group. This makes us pretty vulnerable to this kind of behaviour.

[lliamander]

> In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed.

That isn't why he deleted it. He deleted it because the NYT was threatening to publish his real name in a way that would make it untenable for him to continue to practice psychiatry.

> [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033

To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here.

[user982]

> To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here.

"The SPLC is a hate group" is considered healthy, valid criticism to you, coming from an account which then said that "hate speech against white people has been normalized in our society for some time now" and linked to The Bell Curve as proof for the superiority of the white race, but referring to them as "racist-adjacent" is unacceptably reductionist?

[lliamander]

The comment "The SPLC is a hate group" is not racist. Even if the person who said it is otherwise racist, it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist.

Whatever "racist-adjacent" means, clearly it must mean "not actually racist" because if it was racist, I'm sure you would call that.

[chrisdirkis]

> In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN.

That's... not what happened? He's explicitly stated that he deleted his blog due to the fact that the NYT are planning on doxxing him in a story about SSC. He's fine with the story itself, and the attention garnered, but does not want his name attached to it and announced to the world via one of America's most popular newspapers due to his work as a psychiatrist. As far as I'm aware, this is not because SSC contains comments about right wing views or anything, but more due to an intent to maintain his privacy to his patients, which he believes will improve their quality of care.

If you think I'm incorrect in the above interpretation, feel free to disagree.

[erichocean]

I do disagree, there was a lot of discussion about this on SSC prior to Scott shutting it down. If you just read what's on the site now, you're missing most of the important background information. In particular, the "reporter" at the NYT was clearly looking to get SSC cancelled, so Scott self-cancelled before that could happen, on his own terms.

I'm ambivalent about his decision, but it was definitely his to make and probably is in the best interest of his patients (and himself)—at least in the short-term. The world, however, has lost a really good blog and community.

[chrisdirkis]

I've read SSC for a while now, and check in with the community every so often. Before the takedown, there was talk about the reporter writing an article, with the general consensus being "nervous but optimistic".

I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary.

I'm sad that the blog is down. "Categories are for man" is an essay/lens that I find very valuable. I hope the situation resolves with the blog being up and the NYT not doxxing Scott.

[lliamander]

I agree the reporter was trying to get him cancelled (or at least that seems very likely) but I don't think Scott's decision had anything to do with "the world turning its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed". Frankly, regardless of the kind of political discussions on his blog, that kind of exposure would likely ruin his ability to practice medicine. Having the "right" politics matters very little when many of your patients don't.

[empath75]

People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

[skinkestek]

Can this be because your group of "white nationalists" is getting very big and possibly includes a good number of innocent people?

Someone wrote something really interesting here somewhere a couple of days ago:

every time a non-racist says something not correct enough or God forbid even wrong (e.g. on twitter), they are ejected into the other camp. Eventually the other camp's grown from a fringe phenomenon to being noticeably large and everyone laments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664418

[tptacek]

No, it's not. It's because people make point-in-time observations about HN and don't see the community working over hours, which is what you have to do, since anyone can make an account and write any comment they want here.

[thu2111]

And how did you define "white nationalism"?

HN routinely votes down to the max all kinds of mainstream and legitimate viewpoints that aren't "white nationalism" but aren't supportive of globalism either. Literally any criticism of the EU will hit -4 within hours regardless of how grounded in facts it is. Given the rhetoric that often accompanies that topic, without a doubt some people consider any criticism of the EU institutions or ideologies to be some sort of racist zealotry, although it's utterly mainstream throughout Europe.

[TomSwirly]

> aren't supportive of globalism either.

You understand that when you speak of "globalism" this way, you place yourself as a member of a tiny, if vocal, minority.

Hacker News has a lot of sophisticated, intelligent people from all over the world and that's why fringe political beliefs aren't common. I would add that the collegial atmosphere here means people are unsupportive of naked aggression and anger, which also seems to be a common component of fringe political beliefs.

If it's important for you to criticize the EU and have people listen to you, there are plenty of places to go for that.

My personal belief about the EU is that it like all political systems is flawed and could certainly do with constructive criticism, but has managed to deliver a high standard of living, personal rights, some degree of income equality and even happiness to its citizens for decades now and do it better than any other.

This is why I personally left the United States after thirty years to move to Europe.

[thu2111]

Given I'm British, that'd make me a part of the majority actually. And in the USA that anti-globalism candidate won the last election, so, I guess I'd be in the majority there too (barely).

Obviously you're entitled to your view on the EU, but your attitude is why EU supporters lost in the UK and would lose in other countries in the unlikely event their political systems would ever give them a true choice on the matter. You cannot handle genuine, well reasoned, intelligent and sophisticated criticism of the EU so simply try to suppress it.

That mistake is how the EU's supporters in the UK got their asses kicked, despite having way more resources and the full support of the entire global establishment on their side. They thought all "intelligent, sophisticated" people agreed with them ... because they'd shouted down or suppressed everyone who disagreed. They were then shocked to discover that their arguments were deemed incredibly weak by the large section of the population that hadn't already made up their minds.

That's what happens when you deplatform those you disagree with. They don't go away. They keep refining their arguments where you can't see it, and then if one day you go head to head with them - you lose.

[pjc50]

Fairly sure I could write a comment about how egregiously bad the handling of the financial crisis was in Greece by the EU, or the failings of the Common Agricultural Policy, without getting downvoted to -4.

(I used to consider myself a "cautious/mild euroskeptic" up until the referendum, at which point I've become a hard-remainer)

[thu2111]

Try it. Though for some reason Greece seems to be considered legitimate criticism by some EU supporters, perhaps because this "criticism" is in reality a demand for the EU to have done more, rather than less.

[user982]

This is a thread topic about white nationalists being banned from YouTube. It has 700+ comments, many of them in defense of the banned. Which of the banned people being defended are not actually white supremacists, but innocents caught in a too-broad dragnet?

[phonypc]

I don't think I've even seen an explicitly racist post here, despite having dead comments turned on, maybe excepting obvious trolling or spam. Implicitly racist posts are usually downvoted.

I have seen downvoted replies that nonsensically infer racism in a post. I suspect that's how I would describe what you're thinking of.

[sudosysgen]

Because they're not explicitly racist. It's dogwhistling, or talking points, which almost always indicates racism.

Someone saying that black communities should be more policed by dogwhistling that disproportionate crime warrants "assertion of police presence and predictive policing" by willfully misinterpreting statistics is racist, even if it doesn't explicitly say that black people should be harassed by police.

[camelite]

Does it bother you that some of the people most in favor of increased police presence in crime ridden communities are themselves black. Is it more likely that they are racist too, or that their material concerns for their safety are more legitimate than your racism dog whistle detector?

[cryptoz]

> I don't think I've even seen an explicitly racist post here, despite having dead comments turned on, maybe excepting obvious trolling or spam.

This is self-contradictory. You state that you have never seen explicitly racists posts here, but then you state the exceptions of "obvious trolling or spam". How does a racist post being "obvious trolling" make it not-racist? How does a racist post being spam make it not-racist? Racism abounds in trolling and spam. Spam and trolling are similarly havens for racism.

> Implicitly racist posts are usually downvoted.

That's not my experience.

[phonypc]

The spam and trolling is racist, but it's flagged and downvoted to hell immediately. I was responding to someone saying the opposite voting trends exist for racist content.

[skinkestek]

>People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here.

...and they will be voted down quickly.

> And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

Examples please :-)

The closest thing I can come up with is when I kind of reliably get downvoted every time I say I'd support a ban on nazis but that seems to be die hard free speech people, not nazis.

[phs318u]

I'm sorry but this very discussion contains the reverse of what you're saying. In a post suggesting that SM isn't racist, he's only concerned for the welfare of black children, I posted a link clearly highlighting the many instances of SM's racism. My post got downvoted, the parent didn't.

[empath75]

People are voting up people defending molyneux _in this thread_!

[user982]

> Examples please :-)

The post you replied to was downvoted and flagkilled until I vouched for it. Every post from me in this thread is or has been graytext. Too many other examples just in this thread to enumerate or counteract.

[pjc50]

Not exactly .. people will come out to defend "free speech". But somehow the cause in question is nearly always far right.

[fzeroracer]

I did some very small experiments on such a thing a while ago. One was an example of someone being unjustly detained in violation of their rights [1] and another was an actual example of government censorship [2]. The first one was flagged and killed immediately, the second received zero response.

On HN, all of the 'free speech' stories I see always pertain to the far-right and/or incredibly vitriolic individuals getting removed from platforms. They receive massive amounts of votes and spur on large flamewars. HackerNews unfortunately is just as prone to falling into certain narrative traps as other websites and one of them that seems to come up more and more frequently is free speech and individual rights but only as it pertains to the far-right.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20504332

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19976398

[laretluval]

The discrepancy could be because Hacker News cares more about technology platforms than Alabama public TV. For an example of HN getting upset about government censorship on a technology platform, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219

[fzeroracer]

I'm not sure that's the case. Some examples looking back on some of the most popular HN stories tend to align well with either tech platforms or issues dealing with personal rights. Such as [1] or the Snowden and Julian Assange situations [2] [3]. Or for the sake of not cherry-picking, when the Supreme Corut legalized same-sex marriage [4]. Although perhaps somewhat morbidly, the top comment seems to demonstrate one of the problems I find with HN.

With my first story I figured it would fit well with the people that tend to advocate for personal rights because it was an example of an American citizen being wrongfully detained for three weeks, but it ended up flagged because I think people tend to circle the wagon around anything tangentially related to immigration.

The second example was about a direct example of government censorship and the inconsistency of free speech advocates. Google's actions and bending to China for the sake of maintaining profitable behavior is bad, yes, but they also are not the government. The government should be held to even higher standards and yet it seems people are not willing to do so for this administration. An example of that is that people here were praising the administration's threats against Twitter as some sort of pro-freedom move.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21517722

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12494998

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19632449

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9784470

[thu2111]

all of the 'free speech' stories I see always pertain to the far-right and/or incredibly vitriolic individuals getting removed from platforms

That's because getting people shut down, cancelled, censored, is a left wing tactic, so of course it always seems to be the right getting censored. Free speech is a value the right hold and the left do not, systematically so throughout history.

[Yizahi]

That is incorrect. Censorship is on the orthogonal spectrum to to the right-left one. It is in liberal-authoritarian spectrum, where authoritarian end usually has state censorship and liberal end usually has freedom to individuals/corps to their own selective "censorship" (by definition censorship is only by state entities, so the term should be different). Both left and right can be liberal and authoritarian. And in the middle are centrists.

[TomSwirly]

Can you explain why either of these stories is at all relevant to this site?

I come here to get away from the shouty people. You seem upset people here won't let you get shouty. I disagree.

[TeaDrunk]

In contrary this person doesn't seem upset at all. What rhetoric are you picking up upset by? It seems reasoned and evidenced logic to me.

[skinkestek]

partly because we mostly agree about the rest of it so then there's no need to remind people about free speech.

[UncleMeat]

Given the amount of state violence used against left wing protestors over the last month and the number of active political leaders championing that violence... I really don't agree. Leftist speech is silenced with guns. And the free speech supporters sit silent.

[dragonwriter]

> And the free speech supporters sit silent.

Many of the people who raise objections based on “free speech” every time a private entity declines to actively participate in amplifying right wing speech have been actively cheering the events you describe, and arguing they need to be intensified, not sitting silent.

[baddox]

Lots of people seem to conflate how bad someone's speech is with how "free" it is.

[Karunamon]

There's an entirely innocuous reason for that: free speech isn't a concern for things that nobody is bothered by.

[s9w]

That can be interpreted in a very different way

[tptacek]

The opposite thing is true of HN.

[Ghjklov]

Somehow we have the opposite experience. One day, I'll see people claim HN is a safespace for socialists/communist lefties and another day it's a white nationalist haven.

Which is it? :P

[skinkestek]

dang has commented on this a lot lately and he says it is because we see the other side much easier than our own side.

I agree with him to a large degree:

I personally see mostly problematic content from the left[0] but I guess that is partly my bias.

[0]: for example this comment earlier today that I thought[1] was absolutely crazy "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe" - just try to turn that phrase around to "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe" and see if it wouldn't be flagged to death immediately by everyone including me.)

[1]: someone had to tell me that this is basically an euphemism for nazi, to which I had to reply that I would prefer if we just said nazi then because then I could join in despising it.

[ggus]

> "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe"

VS

> "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe"

The weight there is different though, in the groups you analyse the violence has historically flown in one direction more than in the other. I am inclined to think that there have been historically much less concerns of safety for "religious white nationalists" than for "theistic colored globalists"

[skinkestek]

> The weight there is different though, in the groups you analyse the violence has historically flown in one direction more than in the other.

I think you are wildly underestimating the violence of a number of non-religious groups: recommended reading includes the reign of terror, Stalin and Khmer Rouge.

... and also non-whites by the way.

[Ghjklov]

While it's a euphemism for nazi, I hope you don't just assume that it's appropriate to use "white nationalist" to mean "nazi". Just because other people are being stupid doesn't mean we have to. A white nationalist could be from any political faction and could have different ideas for economic policy. A National Socialist is a very specific kind of person.

[skinkestek]

Totally agree in case there should be any doubt.

I prefer to call nazis "nazis". It is short and simple and we can all agree that we don't like them.

[user982]

But then they reply that "whoever you think are Nazis are not Nazis" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14034920).

[sudosysgen]

Religious white nationalists want me deported or killed. Of course I don't want to be in a space where they are safe.

People say white nationalist instead of Nazi because white nationalists will always deny being Nazis. Someone being nationalist for a race should immediately bring up red flags. There are also small differences. For example some white nationalists are not necessarily antisemitic, which is a characteristic of Nazis, or might even support Israel (though you can be pro-Israel and antisemitic of course), instead focusing their hate on black people, Muslims, etc...

[skinkestek]

> Religious white nationalists want me deported or killed.

Where do you get that religious thing from? Because for all their faults all major variants of the mainstream religion in US and Europe is pretty clear about not supporting that -to the point that a number of clergy got in real trouble with nazi Germany.

[sudosysgen]

I'm taking the religious part from the OP.

Also yes, while a lot of religious people are very good, the religious people that also happen to be white nationalists tend to be even worse than the garden variety white nationalist.

[cbnotfromthere]

"Someone being nationalist for a race"

This makes literally no sense.

[cryptoz]

This is my experience here.

[cryptoz]

> Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN:

I read your linked piece but came to the opposite conclusions you posted here. Reading tptacek's comment indicates to me that he thinks HN's tolerance of white supremacist content is unacceptable ("I don't believe the status quo is really acceptable...")

I also wonder about his criteria for selecting what is white supremacist content and what is not. Most of the content I see on HN that I consider white supremacist or racist content is written in the form of dog whistles and not overt statements. I personally think the prevalence of that content on HN is somewhat higher than tptacek was catching.