[Blueskytech]

The fact that this comment is being downvoted enough for it to have turned grey is why I never post about civil liberties on hacker news, who wants to lose karma? I guess I will do my part today and ask people to upvote reasonable posts like this so that perhaps chilling effects on speech will not increase through negative karma feedback loops.

[vhimnv]

> who wants to lose karma?

Who cares about points on social media?

[jollybean]

On HN they don't like it when you 'talk about voting' because they feel it's kind of pointless, which is kind of true.

But at the same time, despite the fact that we like to think of ourselves as 'smart people' - the voting here has nary any rhyme or reason. It's just populism.

PG himself said it was fine to vote based on 'agreement' instead of 'quality' - which is an interesting thing, because agreement is essentially instinctive and it can bring out our worst impulses.

If you want to try to find answers or be fair in this world, you will be loathe by all - that's just the reality of it.

Since most of the 'misinformation' in this world is derived from people's ideologies and peculiar worldviews, people will tend to assume that you don't like them or their ideology - or worse - that you are 'one of the enemies' even for the mildest disagreement. I don't have the link handy but 'out group negativity' is one of the most common points of agreement among like minded people. Essentially, 'Hating on Conservatives/Liberals' is the primary activity of political groups, it engenders more attention that promoting own ideals.

Being 'agreeable' is the surest way to be charming and making friends, but being disagreeable and questioning is heresy and confrontation.

The other, peculiar issue, is that most bad arguments are founded upon a grain of truth. That grain of truth, which can sometimes be very visceral and potent (say for example, slavery in America, USSR/Communism in 20th century), tends to enable dramatised and aggrandised ideals in response.

The biases of all of the mainstream sources become clear after a while, and most people are going to respond by being angry and conspiratorial, instead of trying to do the heavy lifting of wading through the muddy bits, which is understandable.

The Prime Minster of Canada referred to people protesting against lockdowns as 'racist and misogynist' - which is brutally cynical and unethical, something which he was not held accountable for in most of the press.

He then referred to them as having 'unacceptable views' while discussing of using military force, and now he's using never before used 'emergency measures'. This is deeply disturbing authoritarianism, however much I disagree with the protestors is besides the point.

The CBC, the national broadcaster, openly supported by the current government (in financial terms) has also unfairly misrepresented the nature of the protestors. If you were to watch the protests live on various TikTok streams, and then see what was being reported on TV (I did this live), you'd think you're living in a kind of totalitarian state. I have no love for the protesters and they are definitely anti-vaxxers and needlessly rowdy ... but misrepresenting and arbitrarily slandering them on the supposedly 'objective news' is deeply unethical and a form of corruption.

FYI - on the same weekend that those protesting with 'unacceptable views', those 'unacceptable views' became policy in Denmark and mostly in England, and announced in Sweden as well. Not exactly forgone countries.

It's a sensitive time, and media bias is worth scrutinising, the Guardian is not above scrutiny.