[mannerheim]

> The other two examples are: posting from an iPhone that Apple ought to treat its workers better, and buying a car without seatbelts while saying cars ought to have seatbelts.

This is more akin to posting from an iPhone and saying phones shouldn't exist.

[brimble]

If someone wrote an op-ed saying they thought newspapers should be abolished, including some amount of explanation for why, sent it to the NYT, and the NYT published it, would you think that's slam-dunk proof that the author of the op ed is lying?

[mannerheim]

I'd be a bit confused if it turned out the author was a regular reader of the Gray Lady.

[brimble]

Why?

You may also be surprised to find out I'd prefer much more bike- and walking-friendly city planning, even to the point of making it harder to drive places, while in fact I drive almost everywhere.

Dealing with the current reality does not prevent one from advocating something else. Am I the one taking crazy pills, thinking that's super-obvious?

[mannerheim]

It's possible to make the case that you need to drive to get somewhere. Recreation is an entirely different matter. You don't need to read the New York Times. You don't need to read or post on Hacker News, either. You could go your entire life without these things at very little personal cost. In fact, it costs your attention to be doing these.

The fact that you supposedly hold such a strong position as saying 'this platform shouldn't exist' when the cost to you for not using this platform is minimal makes very little sense to me. For the example of a phone, it's not entirely incongruent for someone who's already bought an iPhone to be upset with Apple, and if they generally wish to use a phone, other companies might not be much better. But if somehow they get the notion that phones or smartphones shouldn't exist at all and continued using them, that doesn't make sense. I know people who get around fine without smartphones. If somebody really thought smartphones shouldn't exist yet continued using them, I question the strength of their convictions, and am more inclined to believe they hold their position more for the value of controversy than genuine belief.

[brimble]

I think what's twisting people up is that I'm advocating a position that might (maybe) threaten this site if it became more popular, but I'm not advocating that position because I don't like using HN. I'm not even advocating the position because I don't like Facebook's site or functionality. The two things are hardly connected, except that the harmful part of it may be (as advocates of these services typically claim) necessary for them to operate as they currently do.

I object to the idea that we have to psychologically wreck some workers. No, Facebook (and Twitter, et c.) do, to stay in business, evidently. We don't have to. We could say they aren't allowed to do that anymore, as we have with other worker safety issues in the past. We could even do that while exempting very small low-harm operations and cases in which that kind of work really is something resembling necessary (police work, say). There's no "gotcha" in "but what about police investigators?" or "but what about HN?" (the two I've seen in this thread) unless one ignores the reality that similar worker protection regulations deal with those sorts of edge cases, routinely. Even if the regulations couldn't have any nuance (why not? It's not been a problem any other time), I'd personally be OK losing HN over that, sure.

[mannerheim]

> I'm advocating a position that might (maybe) threaten this site

You seem to be advocating a position that content moderation, and services that rely upon it, should not exist. I'm not sure why Hacker News would somehow be an exception to this, so you seem to be advocating this site should not exist. If you're not advocating this, perhaps you should explain how this site, which consists entirely and exclusively of user-generated content, would get around without content moderation, or why that content moderation would be acceptable.

> I'm not advocating that position because I don't like using HN.

I'm not sure what that has to do with it. If I heard someone advocating that, for instance, meat should be abolished because it's murder (or something along those lines), I would be perplexed if the person advocating that continued to eat meat. It wouldn't do anything to lessen my confusion if they told me they're not advocating that because they don't enjoy eating meat; that part makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is both having that point of view, and continuing to to engage in that behaviour.

Now, if this individual instead had the position that meat should be taxed, or that people should cut back on their meat consumption because of its impact on the environment, I don't see an incongruence there. But if they hold the position that it should be banned entirely, that doesn't strike me as a deeply-held conviction if they continue to eat meat.

Likewise, for our NYT op-ed writer, if they, e.g., once read newspapers and then decided they were garbage that needed to be abolished, then perhaps there's no incongruence there. If I see him next week with the Sunday Times in hand, I would then gather that perhaps the position he advocated he wasn't serious about.