[throwawayfoo72]

> It's probably appropriate to use a throwaway when discussing this topic, not as a way of sniping via anonymity, but because the social climate surrounding this particular topic has gotten so extreme. Those not immediately in agreement with any anti-NSA sentiment seem to be ridiculed or personally attacked for their ideas. Such behavior is usually a sign that we're treading into "What You Can't Say" territory; hence, the throwaway.

You seem to have stumbled on to the fact that sometimes anonymity is the only way to allow honest discussion. The trade off is that it also allows jerks to be jerks.

I, personally, would prefer allowing a few more jerks in order to also allow people to be honest without being lynched. The reason I bring this up is that usually you find the pro-NSA commenters making arguments against a right to anonymity/privacy. What they generally mean is that others should not have a right to anonymity/privacy, because they are potentially bad people...but when "I" need it, it is justified.

Not saying this to you, personally, it is human nature to be hypocritical in such a way. Sometimes we just need to have it pointed out to us.

[csandreasen]

I think it's just sad that someone feels the need to create a throwaway account just to make a comment that runs contrary to social climate. The point of these forums is to have intelligent discussion, which you can't have without differing opinions.

Personally, I get really frustrated when I spend 20 minutes writing out what I think is a respectful, thoughtful response with links to all of my sources, only to watch it get downvoted into oblivion only because (as far as I can tell) I'm conveying a minority opinion. It kills discussion and turns threads into echo chambers.

I turn on showdead and run my mouse over every grayed-out comment now. I think we'd have better discussions on divisive topics if people would save the downvote button for actual abuse instead of just indicating that they don't agree with you.

[jen_h]

Seconding the frustration. The best comment in this entire thread is [dead]. Anyone browsing with showdead set to no (and anyone browsing without logging in) will never see this content, and it's incredibly unjust as--in this case especially--it's something everyone should read.

[throwawaytime]

Thank you for pointing out that there's a dead comment worth reading. I turned showdead on, and it absolutely was.

I just want to restate what jen_h said: Everyone should turn on showdead and read that comment. In addition to the comment being comprehensive, they also claim to have worked for the NSA. If that's true, then they have a unique and important perspective on this issue.

[dang]

Comments from brand-new accounts posting from Tor IPs get killed by default, because of past abuses by trolls.

When someone lets us know about them, we unkill good comments that should obviously not be dead. Since there are too many posts for anyone to see them all, we rely on all of you to help us. The reliable way to do that is by emailing a link to [e-mail]. General complaints are less likely to reach us, for the same reason that the original problem probably didn't.

We have a plan that I'm optimistic will greatly improve this situation. It involves turning most of this moderation, including what's [dead] vs. not, over to the community. But we don't know yet when we'll be able to implement it.

[maxerickson]

Those comments likely got killed by being from a new account that used TOR.

You can email the mods about stuff like bans you consider unfair at [e-mail], in my experience they are very responsive.