We need an alt-right version of AI like we need a pumpkin spice sushiccino. No thanks but no thanks.
It was flagged because it is against HN guidelines [0], in particular these ones:
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
You commented on my opinion that it's "impossible to have a level discussion." You asked me if I tried commenting, and I answered you.
What motivated my opinion is not just whether my comment deserved flagging or not (and I see a lot of comments that may be more deserving of it by the logic you quoted.) It's the fact that it got downvoted and flagged almost instantly.
Even in an alt-right delusional doublethink universe, answering "no" would have been false.
A level discussion means one where criticism is allowed. It doesn't mean a discussion in which everyone gives a white-glove treatment to yet another useless chatbot, while ignoring the alt-right elephant in the room out of an abundance of courtesy.
You won't ever convince the people here that having your comment sent into the gray is detrimental. Not to mention the 1-9-90 rule[0], meaning 90% of people don't even understand how annoying it is to have a good comment sent into the gray.
According to to them, getting your comment grayed out means its still technically there, so you aren't getting censored by the bandwagon.
They fail to understand that graying out your comment signals to the cursory viewer that it is a low quality comment. Whereas often it is not. You might comment something that is factually right, but goes against HN's vibe du jour, so you get one or two downvotes, and then the larger group starts mass-clicking ▼ without any critical thought.
A much more healthy system would just be sorting comments by vote activity and percentage-positive. It would still make controversial comments slightly less visible, but because there is not explicit signal of quality, no bandwagon effects.
I think it is more nuanced, because the majority of HN is voting on the quality of the argument rather the alignment of ideas. If you present a well reasoned contrarian idea, I don't think you would gather a lot of downvotes.
What gets downvoted are the really bad takes with lazy arguments.
I answered your question honestly. You don't have to agree with my assumption or opinion. What matters (for the argument at hand) is if the facts were minimally enough to justify my opinion. You hinted that I might be giving up without trying to post, which was not the case.
> In my experience, HN is generally anti-Musk
I agree with this. I found the early moderation on this comment section to be suspiciously pro-Musk on a site that usually isn't.
> What matters (for the argument at hand) is if the facts were minimally enough to justify my opinion.
They were not. You were downvoted because you broke the rules of site, therefore there's no evidence of Elon Muskery. Try to have a discussion without breaking the rules first.
> By arguing that they weren't, what was left of your credibility for this argument has evaporated. My guess at this point is that you were probably one of the "moderation massagers" when this PR piece for Musk's Truth Social of chatbots was posted. You got irritated a little too quickly when I commented on the moderation.
You're attacking my credibility and character, instead of attacking my arguments. That's ad hominem.
> Further proof that this post was being PR-managed comes from the fact that my comment at the root of this thread was flagged many hours after the original post, maybe even a day later. Only someone who's keen on PR appearances would bother to do that, probably someone within the organization.
That's no proof of anything. Timing of the flags is random and depends on the attention of registered users. Your comment was flagged because you broke the rules [0] again:
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
An "evidence" is a fact that indicates that something is true. A comment that breaks the rules being flagged isn't evidence of anything. That line of reasoning is akin to attacking a police officer, then shouting "police brutality!" after they fight back. Yes, police brutality may exist, but it's not applicable to your particular situation.
Start following the rules, and then if you get flagged, your argument will make sense.
I think it was flagged because it was a pumpkin spice joke and “no thanks but no thanks.” Couching sharply critical comments in a few more explanatory lines would probably help the reaction. I see some longer comments from people who dislike Musk that are doing better.
Not a type of joke but just a joke making fun of pumpkin spice.
Context:
- "pumpkin spice" is a mixture of cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, cloves and possibly other spices, commonly used for pumpkin dishes.
- Some people like it and around fall you can find it applied to just about everything no matter whether it seems like a good fit. E.g. pumpkin spice latte (coffee), pie, bread, ..... Joke part: just what the world needed, pumpkin spice bacon.
It was an emphatic way of criticizing the political motivations behind Musk's pushes into social media and AI, not a joke.
Either way, the downvoting and flagging were almost instant, which I suspect might be the reason why this comment section is looking atypically pro-Musk overall.
You've done nothing but mock and decry a stranger's answer to someone else's provocative question. I don't actually care about your opinion, but the tactics certainly smack of alt-right projection. Decry perceived MSM censorship, only to pursue it and justify it for themselves.
Buy Twitter, make yet another chatbot, then "massage" moderation systems when people point out that it's not only crappy and redundant, it's also alt-right.
