[phist_mcgee]

I sure do get to decide that they are a shill based upon my perception of their post, their post history, and the manner in which they post. My opinion is that this person is part of china's disinformation campaign against western criticism of that country's policies. If that person is not a paid or unpaid shill, they are still serving the purpose to shill china and their framing of the debate.

[dang]

Not on HN, please. Some people have different backgrounds than you and it leads them to have different views than you and different post histories than you. HN is a much more diverse site than readers assume it is. This is often a perfectly legit thing, and you don't get to harass someone merely because of your perception. Innocent users have been hounded off this site that way—which is mob behavior, and something that none of us wants. I'm sure you don't want it, either, so please follow the rules in the future.

The rule is that you can't make insinuations about astroturfing or shillage without some sort of evidence. Another user having different views than yours—even when you find them wrong, or even perversely wrong—does not count as evidence.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...

I get accused of all sorts of things because we enforce this policy straight down the middle. Guess what: I'm not a secret communist agent. I just don't like mobs.

[phist_mcgee]

Thanks dang. I do not think you are a chinese shill. But I do think your neutrality makes this site suffer, and I do think that there is a right and wrong side of this debate. You may think you are honourable in choosing neutrality, but I think in the end, you are enabling policies that hurt human beings under the guise of free speech.

[tom-_-]

I'd also like to thank dang for upholding the values of evidence, logic, diversity and respect that distinguishes HN from the mob mentality, flame wars and general toxicity that is social media.

[dang]

I'm not "choosing neutrality". That's not the issue nor how we think about it.

The issue is that HN has guidelines that people need to adhere to. It's not ok to break those, no matter how right your side is or you feel it is. Moreover, there's no need to, because you can make a much better case for your side by following them.

[colordrops]

I'm extremely glad they are not willing to censor speech for political reasons. There are dozens of other topics at least as controversial as the Xinjiang issue. Should we censor particular opinions on those as well? It's not tenable or healthy.

[tom-_-]

Read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [e-mail] and we'll look at the data."

You can believe what you want, obviously. But understand without evidence, your claims are baseless.