Here's a fun project idea. Take as input tweets, articles, etc, from various politicians and think tanks. Then generate a mapping of who is probably in a Signal chat with one another, and at what point in time.
I could imagine if the model was very good and well done, to even generate names for the chats, in a UI where clicking into it could show a graph of involvement, ideas likely shared, and approximate timelines. Perhaps clicking into the ideas could lead to details on the history / corruption of the idea, etc.
People do this already, but the signal (heh) detected by that kind of analysis isn't consumption of shared media. That's weak‚ and near the noise floor. The much stronger component is just dissemination of deliberate talking points, which happens all the time. What you need to add is the ability to discriminate the spinsters from the "real people", which is basically impossible.
As always, Chris Rufo lays the game out in plain terms:
> Rufo had been there all along: “I looked at these chats as a good investment of my time to radicalize tech elites who I thought were the most likely and high-impact new coalition partners for the right.”
> Christopher Ferguson Rufo (born August 26, 1984) is an American conservative activist,[1][2] New College of Florida board member, and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.[3] He is an opponent of critical race theory. He is a former documentary filmmaker and former fellow at the Discovery Institute, the Claremont Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.[4][5][6]
As tech elites lost their untouchable image of being pure prodigies and visionaries, it became clearer — especially after scandals like Cambridge Analytica — that many of them operate like ordinary, ruthless capitalists. Public trust declined as more people moved online and more abuses came to light. Instead of fully acknowledging this shift, many of these elites seem to interpret the criticism — much of which comes from media and universities, which do lean left — as purely ideological attacks. From my perspective, it’s a textbook case of cognitive dissonance: their self-image as bold innovators clashes with how they are increasingly seen from the outside, and the natural human reaction is to blame the critics rather than adjust the self-image.
It's funny that the "economic anxiety" thesis for the rise in populism might also apply to tech elites. They hardly cared a few years back when the NYT and other liberal media organs started bashing tech nonstop while the boom was in full swing. Then they started swinging to the right just as the previous administration started unwinding ZIRP.
It's also clear that the big players always thought these things. In this article, Andreessen got mad and founded right-wing echo chambers because left-wing thinkers though censoring anti-racists was bad. Musk has been an egregiously racist person in an egregiously racist family and has never respected the rule of law.
For a while these people felt like they had to pretend to be decent, pro-social humans so they could keep making money: that seems great. More people should pretend not to be racist assholes.
I wonder how much of this is that they got so rich "you can't make more money" stopped being a meaningful threat.
I would say they really believed it all and weren't "bad" at the start because they perceived themselves as enlighted individuals. Then first scandals appeared and they got stuck in echo chambers and endless cope driven circle jerk.
For me the cringiest part of all is sudden strong urge to appear strong and masculine. It is always full package.
This tracks with my experience here, watching tech thought leaders. Obviously Andreesen went very hard right, as did Musk, but just in general the tech elite suddenly and surprisingly turned Trumpy over the last few years; Ackman being a really good case study.
Note that pg himself took a fairly surpising reactionary turn in right about the 2020/2021 timeframe this article describes. A guy who'd always been a left-center pragmatist suddenly was yelling in public tweets about the Campus Left's Desire for Cancellation and whatnot.
Those of us closer to the trenches never really did get the ire here: I mean, yeah, kids are intemperate jerks, but they've always been intemperate jerks. And the tech community... has always celebrated the idea behind the intemperate jerk and an engine for change and disruption. Let the ideas fight it out and pick winners and all, right? Suddenly these billionaires were all snowflakes looking to a political realignment to save them?
Maybe Paul Graham was simply protecting his station within the oligarchy all along. The turn toward appeasing fascism is nothing more than the path of least resistance. But I'm sure he'll write some blogs warning of complacency and send some tweets on Musk's nazi propaganda site. He's one of the good ones.
I've looked at pg:s tweets recently and was surprised that he takes issue with both the genocide in Palestine and the university related disappearings. I had expected him to be more radical and aligned with the current regime.
pg has been yelling about the Campus Left's Desire for Cancellation for years and years (I want to say since 2011?). It's been very frustrating to watch because lots of us identified this as right wing propaganda that (imo) pg was unwittingly participating in.
I think you’re right but would also add the nascent tech worker organization during the same period. I think many of these guys were bitterly resentful of the idea of workers trying to unionize or otherwise negotiate on a more even level, and that made the general political concerns very personal.
Yea, no matter how left-leaning the business owners are, the second that labor gets even a smidgen of power, they all suddenly turn into Ronald Reagans.
Virtually everyone in the echo chambers you frequent are anti woke. That doesn't apply at scale, where people aren't willing to accept your "woke" shorthand.
My understanding of "woke" is levelling the playing field & being aware of your biases so you can be a better human. It's hard for me to imagine someone being against "all humans are equal & deserve equal access to opportunity, if they have the skill & motivation." I know people are out there who don't believe everyone is equal, maybe that's the "anti woke" you speak of?
Either way, "woke" as a term is poorly defined to the point I immediately disengage when someone starts screeching about it, because it means nothing and now the rest of the conversation is pointless.
When I was a (white) youth in the just recently desegregated south, they had a word they called me when I stood up for my black friends and neighbors. They don't feel like they can say that one anymore so they got a new word. They mean what they have always meant by it.
> I have yet to hear a coherent description of what "woke" even fucking means that doesn't ultimately dissolve into a pot-pourri of personal grievances.
Exactly - that's the entire point of a dogwhistle.
I have yet to understand what a dog whistle is in this regard but in response to
quickslowdown's reply, I can only best describe 'woke' as using victimhood as the means to justify(?) their ephemeral power(?) in whatever context they deem fit? /shrug
A dog whistle is speech that's ambiguous enough for a speaker to claim "Well I wasn't talking about that" whenever they receive blowback for a thing they said, but mean it and communicate their meaning if there's no blowback.
To parent's point, the bullshit of the right's current definition of wokeness is that it's "things we don't like."
Which is about as useful as people calling something "problematic."
If there were firmer ideological underpining to the right's platform, I'd be willing to listen.
But currently, more words are spent complaining about and accusing others than talking about what they want to do.
> [woke is] using victimhood as the means to justify(?) their ephemeral power(?) in whatever context they deem fit?
Isn't that what the right is doing now?
I.e. we're victims, so we're justified in using our temporary political power to do whatever we want
> If there were firmer ideological underpining to the right's platform, I'd be willing to listen.
But there isn't and will never be imo, as human behavior cannot be hard-categorized into easy to understand boxes. Just as a light example, look at the former D's that were appointed and confirmed by the current administration. Would you say they have accepted a level of the Right's conformity over their original/core beliefs?
I think if it really was the case that Trump's 2nd term appointees had been all right-leaning, the narrative that he is a _fascist dictator_ would have held more weight. But it hasn't as a sort of compromise or willingness to meet closer to the center.
Whereas inversely, a true-to-life dictator XJP whom there is no perceived dissent within his congress or at minimum ever widely publicized or disseminated. Maybe this is the ideological stability you are looking for?
"Woke" just means "admitting actual history happened".
It is impossible to be an actual nerd and not be woke. Money-men "founders" have nothing but distain for the geeks that made them rich.
[Edit: I see people don't like this, but are simply down-voting rather than engaging. What is your definition of "woke" then, if not an awareness of America's history?]
> Complaining about wokeness doesn't make you right-wing, much less reactionary.
Honestly given the impact, I'd say complaining about "wokeness" pretty much defines "reactionary". Pronouns and flopsy straws never hurt nobody, and kids have been calling their elders racists and rapists and whatnot for generations.
Something happened to convince tech folks that "wokeness" was somehow a threat, when it clearly wasn't and never will be. And that something is interesting, and probably of a piece with whatever was going on in the echo chamber these folks found themselves in.
That's not all wokeness is. There's also the anti-merit stuff, which seeks to e.g. get rid of standardized tests or even remove algebra from school curricula. Then there's racial discrimination in hiring and admissions, which is often so cartoonishly stupid you can't make it up (e.g. https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...).
> Something happened to convince tech folks that "wokeness" was somehow a threat, when it clearly wasn't and never will be
People hated wokeness so much they became single-issue voters. That was short-sighted, but it doesn't mean they were wrong to oppose wokeness.
Characterizing those issues the way you do, instead of as considered and real efforts to do good stuff in the real world, is precisely the result of the echo chamber in question. It really doesn't occur to you to at least nod to the fact that some of us see things differently?
People can be wrong and not "woke" (which you're clearly using to connote "evil" or "enemy"). The slide from reasoned discussion into hyperbolic nonsense is precisely what the article is about. And specifically that the same thing happens to billionaire brains too.
I don't dispute that these are "efforts to do good stuff in the real world". It's just very obvious that they are having the opposite effect. I don't kow what that has to do with an "echo chamber".
> People can be wrong and not "woke" (which you're clearly using to connote "evil" or "enemy").
Of course they can. The Trump administration is wrong and unwoke. I did not use "woke" to connote "evil" or "enemy". Where are you getting that? I mentioned specific cases where "wokeness" has led to bad policy.
> It's just very obvious that they are having the opposite effect. I don't kow what that has to do with an "echo chamber".
Yikes. When something is "very obvious" to you, to the extent that you find yourself exasperated by everyone else's inability to see the obvious truth you're taking as a prior... You are almost certainly in an echo chamber.
The stuff you sneer about here has real argument around it. It's not as dumb as you clearly think it is. Does that mean you're wrong? No! But it means you're not thinking clearly. It's time to talk to some woke DEI hippie school board members or admissions officers or whatever, and maybe see if you can find out what they actually think about gender or racial justice or whatever.
You jump from bizarre accusation to bizarre accusation.
Here's my go at diagnosing you (and this goes for many people in this thread): the centerpeice of your worldview has been "liberals good, conservatives bad" for your entire life. Now, when faced with clear evidence of well-meaning liberals enacting harmful policies in the name of "racial justice," your brain short-circuits and you start sputtering gibberish (or arguing semantics, e.g."you can't define wokeness!").
The way out is to admit that liberals are human, they make mistakes, and "wokeness" and its associated policies are examples of this. Don't worry, after you start seeing reality more clearly, you can still vote for the Democrats! They're still better than Trump!
"Remove algebra from the school curricula" is a lie. The decision that made noise was about eliminating accelerated algebra classes where people take algebra ahead of the normal schedule. Whether you think that is dumb or not, it is not "removing algebra from the school curricula."
They (CA) are dumbing down what we teach children (delaying Algebra I, or replacing it with "data science or statistics") because there are racial disparities in test scores. That's the result of wokeness, and it's bad.
None of the very left people I know would describe themselves as anti-woke...but they all make it very clear that they find wokeness (or whatever you want to call it) ridiculous.
I wish when people use the term woke they would say what they actually mean. I suspect they don't because they don't want to be seen as racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever. What do you mean by woke?
The "left" is huge and diverse (which people don't know because left-wing thinkers don't get the adoration and amplification right-wing thinkers do in this country.)
I am guessing you are referring to Marxist-Lennonists, or even Tankies. Folks who believe that only class oppression is worth fighting, and that the solution is centralized authoritarian regimes with left wing people in power. Those folks are generally anti-liberal, despite being on the left, and deny any history that would complicate their politics.
Alternatively, you might know neoliberals, who believe in the power of capitalism to address social problems and deny any history that might complicate their politics.
Or you might know Syndicalists, who believe unions are the path to worker's political power, and who deny any history that might complicate their politics.
Etc.
If you know one "very left" person, you know one very left person.
“Wokeness” is an elusive term that is the best attempt to describe a wildly variable but seemingly consistent pattern of beliefs and actions. My left-side friends disavow “wokeness” but still agree with many of the problems “woke folk” identify.
As an outsider, it seems like the moniker of woke best applies to the pattern of thinking that broad problems have a simple and heavy handed solutions. Furthermore, criticizing such solutions will put you in the same camp as those committing the offense, even though you may agree about the problem.
Wokeness isn't hard to define. If you don't know what it is at this point, there's really no helping you.
One of the lessons of the second Trump admin is that "smashing wokeness" may feel good (to people like me for example) but it isn't actually very important, and it doesn't make up for incompetence and lawlessness.
Your comment is actually an example of the echo chambers left and right wing people live and breathe in.
Out in, "what the F are you idiots doing with our economy"-land. There are exactly zero people who give a mosquito's dick about Woke DEI Trumpanzees or whatever.
These are issues important to elites. We tend to live in an echo chamber here on HN, so we think it's important to the guys working as hired hands during the day and the walmart stock shift at night.
Let me tell you, out here in flyover country, no one working at Taco bell cares about what you care about. Woke, anti-Woke, digital privacy, owning the libtards, stopping the right wing conspiracy, they don't care about any of it. There's a lot of pain out here, and they're way too busy to even worry about that useless crap.
We had an election in Wisconsin recently that the right wingers sailed in with millions on millions of dollars to try to win. Ended up losing handily. Why? Because they talked about a lot of things that, while they may have meaning outside of opioid country, don't mean a whole lot inside of it.
I just don't think elites get it. And that's dangerous.
The "kids" are not the ones kidnapping people who disagree with them.
Bill Maher still has a show, despite having spent more than twenty-five years being a racist POS. There is no such thing as "Cancel Culture": there are just people who are SUPER mad that their kids think their racism is bad.
"I have been silenced!"[1] says the side with all three branches of government, owns newspapers and TV stations, business leaders and executives in front of microphones all the time. But, yea--they're the ones that are being silenced.
The idea of shutting down ideas is itself an idea that can be fought by other ideas. Those kids do not actually control institutions that can enforce the shutting down of ideas, even if cultural mores might have temporarily aligned with their positions from time to time.
Soon as Trump's term started he started removing any mention of slavery from the Smithsonian cuz 'merica.
That's really the concerning thing. Liberals and conservatives not only dislike ideas, they dislike history and facts. That's what makes them dangerous.
On the left it seems you at least had a few moderates who had the good sense to keep the wing nuts in line. We tried the right, thinking we might get better governance, and have discovered, to our collective horror, that the right is wing nuts the whole way down. So you get things like tariffs, and purges, and wild 4$$ ravings about plane crashes being caused by too many blacks.
In the US we need to take things back in hand or it really will be way too late to do anything. These extremists will run the nation right into the ground.
HN seems loathe to have any meaningful discussion about or reflection on how and why notable SV figures seemed primed to embrace the Trump/MAGA right (see, for example, quote in OP from Chris Rufo). I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn.
Also, after articles like these, will calls for "viewpoint diversity" finally apply to conservatives who chase out even the moderates from their spheres? After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article.
> I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn.
The clear contention in the linked article is that it's neither. It's just plain old group think fed by an echo chamber. You take a genuine-but-isolated affront or conflict[1], tie it to one or two other less important side issues[2], and then just line everyone up on the "good" or "bad" side of a line. Before you know it our community is cheering the return of a regime that literally tried to stage a coup and making tortuous excuses for why we need to be deporting four year old citizens with cancer.
It's 4chan. It's just 4chan all over again.
[1] Ex: the anti-elite current within the lefty political sphere that has never really loved the idea of making common cause with SV billionaires.
[2] Middle aged dudes, demographically, tend to be a little squicked out by trans rights and pronouns and LGBTQ+ issues, think paper straws are dumb as fuck, and really hated seeing stuff burned down in protets.
There was lots of resentment against unionization efforts from tech workers -- workers who were increasingly seen as ungrateful insurgents trying to mess up a good thing -- and tech oligarchs decided that everyone left of center was exactly like tech workers in Silicon Valley. For them, leftists are infected with a "mind virus", and needing some enlightened elites to save them from themselves. Of course there's no self-reflection about the mind virus that causes folks like Andreesen to use the philosophy of meth addicted neo-Nazis[1] as the ideological basis for their new political order.
Like all other forums, public and private, HN has an ideological filter. I'm as surprised as the next person that the HN ideological filter turned out not to be permissive enough to discuss the downfall of the free society that fostered its creation.
The oligarchs will not lose their freedom or power and they won't fight (or even inconvenience themselves) to preserve yours. Next time you're reading a blog or a biography of a tech billionaire, remember that they got their wealth from wage theft and they will keep their power by destroying yours.
The only law tech companies -- and the oligarchs that own and control them -- have to obey is allegiance to Trump. No other law will be enforced.
> Like all other forums, public and private, HN has an ideological filter. I'm as surprised as the next person that the HN ideological filter turned out not to be permissive enough to discuss the downfall of the free society that fostered its creation.
Is it that surprising? As a longtime member, this seems perfectly consistent with the general bent of the website. Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility". Those same expectations are weaponized to drive out dissenting voices, which creates a positive[0] feedback loop.
Honestly, if anything, I'm surprised that this comment thread is (reasonably) lucid, because that's not how a lot of other comment threads recently on similar issues have gone.
[0] In the literal (non-normative) sense: a positive feedback loop is one which amplifies the effects, whether or not the end effects are "good" or "bad".
> Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility".
HN also does the same for far left authoritarian ideologies, those are also here and upvoted. I don't see how this pushes out anyone.
> HN also does the same for far left authoritarian ideologies, those are also here and upvoted.
Appropriately, this reply (which is exactly what I was expecting) is itself an example of the effect I'm describing: the false presumption that two point which can be distinguished are inherently equivalent and comparable.
> I don't see how this pushes out anyone.
Given your other extensive other comments about these topics, I can understand why you don't think this dynamic would push anyone out, and I also don't think we're going to see eye to eye on any of this.
I believe in the Scandinavian model. Which means socialized healthcare and free higher education, atheist education, and abortion rights, but also means voter ID, kick out illegal immigrants, right to work, no affirmative action in college admission etc.
I think you Americans are crazy both on the left and the right, I am criticizing the left more since that is more represented here, there is no need to criticizing the right since so many do it already.
> After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article.
The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view. Backlash against the majority view is much harder to come by. And being in the majority and supporting minority perspectives is more uncomfortable, and frankly much easier to opt-out of if there is sufficient discomfort.
If that were true, Republicans would spend a lot less effort on voter suppression & wouldn't have needed to have the Supreme Court repeal the Voting Rights Act in order to win.
This is orthogonal to my point. Modern Republicans are populists who try to appeal to the majority constituency. But their policies are generally so bad (and mean-spirited) that they don't have broad appeal even amongst that group.
> The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view.
Be specific and put up numbers.
There is a wide, wide swath of issues where the "liberal" position is the majoritarian one.
Conservative positions are generally pro-hetero, white, and Christian. Also male, but that is the one where they're not the majority, but very close to 50/50.
There are "liberal" positions that are popular, but generally the current big conservative pushes are against minority populations. E.g., DEI, trans, immigrants (from certain countries), etc...
You present it as a dichotomy when that's not actually the case. I'm heterosexual and white, but I don't see how policies that e.g. allow gay people to marry - a stereotypically "liberal" position - harm me in any way.
There are some things where it's a zero-sum game, such as affirmative action. And those do in fact tend to be less popular even among liberals (as evidenced by referendums on those topics in blue states). But that's a relatively small part of the overall liberal platform.
So like, is knowing someone who knows someone in these chats the key to getting your family out of the concentration camp, just like knowing someone who knows someone who works at Google is the key to getting your account unlocked?
Post facto, it seems given the monster that these people have actually unleashed and empowered, the preemptive negative reactions to what they had been saying in public were actually pretty fucking justified. And I say this with the perspective of someone who generally believes in open debate, hates cancel culture, and who was reading Yarvin as he was writing under the Moldbug nym and found much of his analysis compelling. But it always struck me that Yarvin came to the exact wrong conclusion wanting to run thermodynamics backwards. Even Urbit, I had thought there was something novel and universal there, until I realized it was actually just describing another Java 1.0 dressed up in fancy equations and four-letter words. Like sure, if you could travel back in time and make all computing equipment run Urbit, Java, or Rust that sure would make a lot of things easy. Except in the real world, other languages already exist and have anchoring utility that is likely to keep them existing.
I keep pondering a steelmanning of this idea of the Elite Jewish Conspiracy, pushing this radical acceptance of non-traditional lifestyles onto our society through various distributed leadership positions. I think that needed to get more mainstream treatment - stepping back and looking at it impartially, does this not seem an awful lot like what one would expect as counterbalance to the cultural memory of the Shoah? An attempt to prevent such an utter industrial-scale waste of human life and potential in the name of uniformity from ever happening again? And maybe the right answer is that we needed to get past its cloying overreactions, incorporate it into our baseline society, and move forward - instead of giving in to the simpleheaded authoritarian powermongers promising to simplify the world for us if only we hand them the power with a mandate to destroy.
Edit: I think I misread the comment somewhat—sorry. I've restored it, and will autocollapse this moderation bit.
---
> getting your family out of the concentration camp
Could you please not take HN threads straight into flamewar hell like this? We're trying for something quite different here, and it's way too aggressive to kick off a thread with rhetoric like that.
We’re talking about the group chats that may have “changed America” into a place where our president pays foreign dictators to house criminals in a overcrowded prison, and where they may be debating sending American citizens. When exactly is the aforementioned rhetoric appropriate, when it’s too late?
It seems to me directly in line with the nature of the article as written, the tech context we currently live in, and i don’t think it’s against HN guidelines to speak uncomfortably truths. In fact it seems core to what we’re trying to do here.
Thanks for all you do here, not trying to turn this place into Twitter, but I also think it’s important that we not
fall into the trap of not being willing to confront the outrageous truths of what’s happening in our community because the rational response is outrageous.
I appreciate the reply. My reaction, like most moderation comments, was shallow and limited in scope to what I know about forum dynamics. If you come out swinging with Nazi references, you're turning the knobs to 11 from the start. That's not compatible with the kind of discussion HN is going for. It's particularly troublesome when the thread is new, because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions. Also it's not as if that was the only such reference in the comment.
Reading it the next morning, though, I think I misread what mindslight meant by "getting your family out of the concentration camp". Now that I'm reading it differently, I can see how my reply came across as too heavy-handed. Sorry all!
Hey, we appreciate you, dang. More than you probably will ever know. That this community is still what it is... it blows me away, and it is in large part due to your vigilance. Thank you.
I'm afraid that's sample bias. We've done exactly the same kind of moderation countless times on all wings of commenters for many years.
You're right that not every comment which should be moderated actually gets moderated, but this is not because we're secretly on one side or the other. It's because we don't see most of what gets posted here. There's far too much of it to read, and we can't moderate what we don't see. If you see a post like that going unmoderated, the most likely explanation is that we just didn't see it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).
To politically passionate users, it always feels like the mods are against them and secretly in cahoots with the other side, but this is an illusion (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). If it helps at all, the other side has exactly the same complaint, just with the political bit flipped. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26368875 for a plethora of quotes; they're years old now, but the phenomenon is perennial. Here are a few more recent cases:
> We got complaints about your use of the word "rabid" and I think they have a point. That crosses into name-calling in the sense that the HN guidelines ask you not to do.
This is in response to someone who is violating the rules on extremist/flame bait/trolling with a right wing bent. It appears that you were pointed out this comment based on the inclusion of the word “rabid”.
Now instead of coming in as a mod enforcing impartial rules, you’ve added words that give the tone that you are only admonishing this person because they got snitched on.
If I believed you were impartial then even if you were pointed out this instance of rule breaking by an impartial observer, I would still expect you to treat it in a neutral manner.
I understand after reading your links that I am probably falling to some sort of bias when I called you out on this particular, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone these days
Would it help you build some trust if I, as the original commenter in this thread and long time HN user with showdead=yes, said I have not noticed an overriding left/right bent to moderation? There are definitely topics and periods where there is more frenetic energy from the "left" or the "right" causing more heated comments, but this is not a moderation bias.
And I agree that my original comment was treading the line in a few places! I think some of that is necessary these days, as I said in a follow up. Honestly I'm still reeling a bit from dang's response of effectively 'oh, you were talking about the current concentration camp? carry on then'. Because yes - I wish that term were still unnecessarily inflammatory.
(also FWIW the other "right wing" comment you're talking about is actually coming from a "left" perspective. I don't think it's an appropriate response to this topic, and I'm personally past that kind of self-flagellation because the time to focus on fighting the "rabid progressivism" is when it has power. But we're all processing this in our own ways)
The US has done literal concentration camps at least twice, has a literal torture camp we rent in Cuba explicitly to get around the "inalienable" rights of people in the US, and the current admin has literally sent people to an active concentration camp in El Salvador, and has joked about sending "homegrown" people to this camp and that El Salvador will have to build more as they blatantly ignore the courts telling them to bring people back.
This is asinine Dang. Making references to REALITY as it exists right now is not "flamewar".
The HN guidelines have never required people to ignore reality.
Discussing concentration camps in the context of the US has never been "flamewar" territory. This is like when Google bans your account for showing historical footage of atrocities. Whitewashing reality like this is gross.
I certainly appreciate that you apologized openly but that was a comment you made in the guise of "Site Moderator". Those comments sometimes come with corrective actions, and are specifically meant to shape behavior. They have been used to shape MY behavior.
I'm pretty sure I've been chided before for making a drive by comment on this site, but that seems to have been the case here, in your official role.
>On the other hand, other people would probably have misread it in the same way, so the point still applies, just not as much, and probably not enough to justify my mod response.
>At first I read it as a gratuitous Holocaust reference (i.e. some sort of throwaway flamebait)
Part of my response is that I cannot fathom even a little bit the way you mistakenly read the comment in such a way, unless you just barely even see the comments you are moderating. Was this driven by a "concentration camp" auto-moderator or something?
It's frustrating how often we are told to trust that you moderate fairly, that any concerns we have are just "sampling bias" or confirmation bias, that we can't really discuss or doubt the rules, that definitely no vote manipulation happens, but we also cannot expect you to read the sentence containing the supposed reference?
It's a straightforward reference that shouldn't be controversial to anyone looking to substantively discuss what is happening to our society. I know there are a lot of true believers and bots that want to shout down uncomfortable truths which makes for flamewar, but if we let that prevent good faith discussion then we might as well throw in the towel because that reality distortion field isn't going away.
I thought the rest of my comment was insightful as well, despite having to trade in some inflammatory terms. We're apparently at a time of pulling on these threads that had remained unpulled. The only way forward is to hash these uncomfortable ideas out in the open. Because as the article describes, they're certainly getting pulled on in less public forums where other uncomfortable truths have an easier time remaining unvisited.
On the other hand, other people would probably have misread it in the same way, so the point still applies, just not as much, and probably not enough to justify my mod response.
This may be a little embarrassing, but I don't read people's comments very closely. There isn't time, and it isn't necessary. It does mean I sometimes guess things wrong, though, (moderation is guesswork*) and that sucks.
Well, thank you for looking again! I'm curious how you interpreted it? I thought about swapping around the two parts of the sentence to put the familiar context first, but thought it landed better the way I said it.
On the original topic, because I will acknowledge that my comment did have several bits of dry tinder in it - the sin of my lead in sentence was that it was irreverant. It would have been inappropriate if it were responding to another comment. But I think there has to be more leeway in initial comments so that there is a chance of moving past the politicized pit of arguing about whether something even exists, and towards a less-widely-shared but larger understanding such that we might actually do something about it.
I think the fundamental problem here is that we as a country now have something that can be straightforwardly referred to as a concentration camp. There are probably other terms that are more technically accurate, but not so much as to forgo the cultural touchstone of what we're actually really close to.
I'd say you are in a similar position to maybe 2016ish or so (my own mental timeline is a bit hazy), when the tide had just started to turn against the prevailing "woke [0] brigade", and insightful but not-completely-defensively-worded comments would get jumped on by a bunch of reasonably-phrased but inflammatorily-framed comments, making it seem like the original comment was starting the flamewar.
[0] I personally hate this term like others hate "concentration camp", but it's awfully hard to argue against its current utility, regardless of how far from its original meaning it is.
At first I read it as a gratuitous Holocaust reference (i.e. some sort of throwaway flamebait). Later I realized you were probably referring to ongoing current events. One can agree or disagree but that at least wasn't gratuitous.
This is vile dan. What do you believe we should call a prison complex holding forty thousand humans on the basis of their social affiliations, tried en masse or not at all, never known to have released a single one? I'm flexible on nomenclature but if you're going to veto I think you should suggest an alternative.
I vastly preferred the world in which we could leave the "Elite Jewish Conspiracy" thread unpulled, and write off the rare person mentioning those words as some crackpot. But the reactionaries have been pulling hard on these types of threads, and using the bland generic negative responses to drive even more engagement - "see THEY don't even let you talk about it!". So like maybe we - the "left" if you prefer that narrower label, but really "actually-conservatives" (as in we actually respect the institutions and values of our society, rather than merely pretending to) - need to start tackling these topics head on?
Putting my original point a different way - maybe we need to stop taking the mild widespread pushing of societal tolerance/progressivism/etc from our institutions for granted, and acknowledge it as a hard-won asset created from the horrors of World War II? Like the rightist machine of unquestioned hierarchical execution has and likely will always exist in our society, so if there's some ever present cloying refrain of "don't embrace the rightists" expressed throughout our institutions and media is that really surprising? The alternative is to give the rightist forces of top-down control a blank check, which they will eagerly embrace to carry out individual-prerogative sadism as we're currently seeing.
Whether you align or don't align with these politics, I find it generally distasteful when private chats are leaked. There's clearly some expectations of privacy (using Signal with expiring messages) and someone leaking this really destroys trust and open communication. It causes people to not engage in open dialog and to move to even smaller and smaller circles. This ends up stifling open and honest debate and results in more narrow, provincial views of the world.
And for what? For clicks? To tell on someone? To smear someone? What "good" was accomplished from this leak and this article? Some advertiser dollars were made -- probably a trivial amount compared to the value of honest debate among the most powerful in tech.
> I find it generally distasteful when private chats are leaked.
The best private chats are those with a few vetted members who understand the consequences of a leak. However, this doesn't fully protect the chat because the leaker, especially if he or she is a skilled liar, could remain anonymous indefinitely.
A common thread among leaks is that people post salacious content under their real names (or pseudonyms that are easily traced) under the guise they are sharing in a "safe space." Nothing is safe from a serial screenshotter.
It's not unreasonable to say that the more outsized influence you have over others, the less privacy you can expect to preserve against them (or the harder you have to work to maintain it), both ethically and practically.
There's pretty wide intolerance for leaking everyday discussion by everyday people, but some people are in a position where their actions can very greatly impact others and some of their relationships and discussions have bearing on that. You can't be surprised if the potentially-impacted seek to seize transparency even where it's not handed to them.
> And for what? For clicks? To tell on someone? To smear someone?
To stop them from doing what they are trying to do. The goals they are working towards are malign & repugnant and this makes them my adversaries. I'm not interested in a fair fight with a neosegregationist billionaires' coup. They certainly aren't going to give me a sporting chance.
For what it's worth, nothing was leaked in this article except for the existence of these chats. There are no screenshots, and very few concrete details other than some information about membership timelines.
This article contains genuine reporting about the right-wing influencers working to shift the opinions of the richest people in the USA. That seems like a large amount of good to me.
Nah, screw these people. Right wing billionaires actively courting and trying to influence their peers in business and media? This is the smoke-filled room as a group chat with disappearing messages. What good was done here? Well, hopefully, people realize that Marc Andreessen is neglecting his responsibilities to post all day and David Sacks whines when people challenge him. I want to know who's hanging out with Chris Rufo and Tucker Carlson, or introducing oped columnists to Curtis Yarvin, and I want it to be abundantly clear that they suck.
To give an unrelated example, there's currently a huge drama explosion in the vtuber world due to Person X trying to strongarm an artist into not working with Person Y, while X and Y being ostensibly best friends with each other in public.
People do not like being lied to, and they especially do not like someone lying to them while concretely making their life worse.
> compared to the value of honest debate among the most powerful in tech
Yet again this seems to be using "honest" as code for "racism".
We got complaints about your use of the word "rabid" and I think they have a point. That crosses into name-calling in the sense that the HN guidelines ask you not to do.
OK, sorry for violating the decorum. At the time I wrote it, thought it was an apt term, about behavior by "my own team", but point taken, and I think I have a better sense of the rule now, thank you.
The right is winning elections and your side is not. Maybe consider stop being alienating liberals long enough to build a coalition that wins elections?
Eventually the Democrats are going to recognize that hardline "if you're not with us, you're against us" progressives are costing more votes than they're worth and show them the door.
The "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality is exactly what won the current administration. People like the image of a strong man with his own opinions. Democrats have been retreating to the center on nearly every policy position, and it clearly isn't working.
The disinvitation data is so incredibly small that there's no way on earth we can call this "rabid." In Haidt and Fukuyama's "The Coddling of the American Mind" they present data on disinvitations attempts. And it is in the tens of attempts nationwide. They even have to present the data with Milo Yiannopoulos removed since he made up a considerable portion of all disinvitation attempts.
You can think that students are foolish for doing this. You can choose to stop donating because of a response by an institution. But to use this to claim that the left has "gone rabid" is ridiculous given the actual data.
The students' behavior is not what drove voters towards the reactionary right. Breathless media coverage that blew this behavior completely out of proportion is responsible for this.
My general observation is that none of these things (witch hunting, attacking, or deplatforming from the left) happen at any scale to merit their coverage other than perhaps "public figures get yelled at on twitter."
And, I dunno, I feel like the fact that my friends who aren't public figures but do research on climate change get weekly death threats just seems more important than the fact that people yell at JK Rowling online for being transphobic.
That's awful about your friends, and I agree there appears to be a huge general problem with that kind of thing. I hope the FBI are able to help, on at least a case-by case basis, if they can't solve the pipeline problem.
I still think there's a large problem with a dominant mode of interaction we're seeing by much of the left-leaning (it's pervasive online, and transparent pandering and manipulation in left-appealing news shows), and that it's hurting more than it's helping.
I agree that there are people on the left who are mean online and that they shouldn't generally act this way. I just think that
1. This largely ends here (there are exceptions, and it is definitely no fun to be yelled at online)
2. The right has consistently acted in all of the same ways (plus more bomb threats) to no similar criticism
3. The political strategy of the left cannot require "literally everybody online is on their best behavior all of the time."
And no, law enforcement is absolutely uninterested in dealing with death threats sent by people who think that doing research on climate change is evil. The idea that the FBI would help out is odd to me.
Understood, though I didn't have that idea about #2. My impression was that it was a well-known problem (going back to talk radio and Rupert Murdoch properties, and then growing and being more in our face with everything the Internet enabled).
Maybe one of the problems is that, online, a flood of dozens of angry tweets stomping on someone, by (for the sake of argument) a small minority of people who are having a bad day... has the effect that people are routinely (almost systematically) stomped, because there's always some dozens of people having a bad day? And they all sound the same, so maybe it's a rotating vocal minority that looks like a bigger problem than it is?
Regarding death threats...
I think we have different expectations about the possibility of gov't help (I'm still a bit Pollyanna on this). Local police might or might not have the resources to take the report and coordinate with federal resources, but it's likely inter-state, so the victim could go direct to the FBI.
I'm sure I've read news stories of the senders of death threats being tracked down by law enforcement.
And, I suppose the sender just might be linked to a domestic group/network (or foreign agitators) that the FBI is already tracking.
If the researchers are under a university or NGO, are they getting support from their organization, or do they need to confront the org's administration into interfacing better with law enforcement regarding death threats?
(I'm speaking of baseline situation in recent years; I have no idea what the situation at the FBI is this week, given the various gov't disruption going on, and the keyword "climate" being targeted by some. Even if the situation is complicated at the moment, maybe lead the reporting of a crime and request for assistance with the death threat part, and then the details relevant to the investigation/analysis include that the victim is a climate researcher?)
If all else fails, an org's lawyer (and investigator they hire) might also identify doxing and egging activity (especially online) that's traceable to death threats, and be able to do more with law enforcement and/or civil courts.
It is true that basically every public figure has people screaming at them on twitter or bluesky constantly. This is probably bad in general, and I think it is worth understanding how this sort of thing can affect the opinions and behaviors of public figures. I suspect that I wouldn't respond well to waking up every day to having people yell at me online.
But this effect isn't politically aligned with the left. So it becomes frustrating when this is used exclusively to criticize the left and to excuse the right.
I'm curious if you've ever interacted with law enforcement organizations for something like this. Remember, my friend gets regular death threats. Even if somehow magically the FBI acted on the first one, will they act on the 10th?
And no, public universities do not hire private investigators via their legal office to track down death threats their faculty receive.
If it's a public university, and their personnel are getting death threats regarding university work, the university had better make an effort to help -- if not for decency, then for liability. Including working with law enforcement.
One easy thing the university can do themselves (under the direction of a lawyer or administrator) is to ask IT for the Web server logs (or analytics) for accesses to the person's pages. They don't have to subpoena ISPs to see that, right before the most recent threat, there was a burst of referrers from `https://webforum.example/bobs-basement-militia?post=1232767`.
Well let me tell you very clearly: this is not how any of this works.
The FBI won't care. The local cops won't care. The university won't pull logs for network traffic, nor would the existence of this information be meaningful to anybody to take any action.
Universities can grow some of the most arrogant and unaccountable people, even worse than a bad for-profit company. But two things that can get the attention of many of the bad apples are journalists and lawyers.
If you have been banned from running an event at every single college, every single local bar, every single local theater, etc, you still have just as much ability to get your message out as the vast majority of average people.
Nobody has any obligation to provide you a platform. That is literally their first amendment right. If you want to use the government against "cancel culture", you are attempting to suppress people's first amendment rights of association.
The founding fathers had to pay people to print their pamphlets. That option has always been available and was the very context that the first amendment was built around.
The founding fathers never expected anyone else to carry their ideas. They expected ideas to be carried by their merit.
The data above is since 1998. So in the last 27 years we've seen an average of 28 successful deplatforming attempts annually. The website cites 172 attempts (not necessarily successful) in 2024.
There are thousands of colleges in the US. Surely hundreds of thousands of invited talks annually. I just cannot imagine thinking that this is a substantial social problem that should justify changing one's voting behavior.
This is a perfect example of the law of American politics that only Democrats have agency. Anything Democrats do is the responsibility of Democrats, and anything Republicans do is the responsibility of Democrats.
It's kind of unreal that in the comments of an article about an actual (successful!) conspiracy between ultra-wealthy tech elite and extreme right activists to undermine american democracy for their own benefit, you're most concerned about liberal campus protests. You may not be as progressive as you think!
Speech is not created equal. What some students say in some college campus has very little power compared to the speech of one of the richest people __in history__.
When someone famous and rich says something fucked up, the reaction to that isn’t deplatforming but rather a basic attempt at defense.
The anecdote was my writing mistake, not what I was most concerned about. (I started writing the anecdote, then decided what was important was the much larger problem, and oopsed the writing.)
As for your point, I had some of the same thoughts about the overall article as you did. But I quoted a small piece of it, to narrow in on one point I wanted to make, which might be less obvious to people who think like us about the topic.
Of course some wealthy and powerful have been undermining democracy; but what if that quote was honest: is it a valid criticism, and can we improve the situation?
As long as we're stuck with billionaires, wouldn't it be great if more of them decided it was better to promote an informed and functioning democracy?
This crosses into personal attack and you can't do that here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and edit out such swipes in the future, as the rules ask, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: this has unfortunately increasingly been a problem with your account lately:
You've made many fine contributions to HN in the past and I don't recall your account having been involved in so much ideological and political flamewar. Could you please fix this? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
IIRC, there was an invited talk at the unversity, and some student organized people to go in to the talk and disrupt it, such that the speaker literally couldn't be heard.
That's not the student exercising their free speech. It's the student denying the benefit of free speech to their fellow students and the rest of the university.
The university apparently hadn't yet educated the student on the basics of university, and there was not yet any sign that the university was going to. Reporting followed up with the student, when they promoted their personal brand, and solicited funding to continue their fight.
(You might be happy to know that, instead of my modest donation going to the university with the student who thought a first-rate university was the place to ignore the fundamentals they teach, and instead play self-promoting influencer... IIRC, that was the year the money went to a homeless trans person, who'd been through more hell than most people can imagine, and who needed a discreet laptop so that they could practice coding job skills, but without the laptop getting violently stolen from them in whatever shelter they could get into. I'm not making this up, and the contrast was striking.)
Regarding your other comments, much of the rabid left didn't seem to be acting as the savvy political operators you suggest: a whole lot of people were mindlessly flinging their poo, and playing right into the hands of some of the worst of their adversaries. Maybe it was partly a combination of crisis mode over the best of intentions (e.g., help those who need help), and anger and fatigue from same (which I certainly felt), but there also seemed to be a whole lot of not knowing any other mode of reasoning or acting. Maybe that's not their fault -- you might blame the deterioration of popular journalism, social media sites preying upon their users, and a dearth of visible role models demonstrating anything else -- but that seems to be where we are, for large slices of the vocal population. And there's been a lot of counterproductive.
I am not saying they are super savy. I am saying they were right about the right.
They were right, because they were not determined to excuse dveryone on the right up to absurdum and because they read what right actually said.
Moderate right and center consistently and always excused far right and refused to beloeve it exists even when it was completely apparent. And consistently deployed double standards where right was excused and left acts massively exaggerated.
> Funny how people like you never ever use the same power to force left or liberal speakers. It is ok to boycott or criticize those.
Do you know OP personally? Do you really think it's reasonable to assume that everyone in the universe (except for you, perhaps) is a hypocrite like this?
There's plenty of people that feel the administrative force of the university shouldn't be used to suppress either side. Let the gun club invite Luigi. Let the trans club invite the Stonewall rioters.
You're welcome to say you dislike the speaker. You don't have to attend. But you shouldn't have the authority to stop other people from inviting them to speak, or to stop other people from listening.
I see it not as 'right is the way they are because' but 'this is what the right exploited, and I too allowed myself to go down a crappy path'. It's a pretty brave, honest, and self reflective post.
I think we got the far right reality of today by liberals completely ignoring working class pain and appearing to solely focus on a controversial minority. I say appearing because they didn’t seem to do anything else.
This allowed the current administration to step in by promising something different, with no intention of delivering anything but tax relief for the wealthy and unchaining corporations from those pesky regulations that prevent higher profits.
When you try to force ideological conformity with censorship, you end up creating even tighter echo chambers that amplify groupthink and entrench the very ideas you are trying to combat.
The best way to defeat an idea is to publicly tolerate and dispute it.
Note that the thing that drove Andreessen to the right was left-wing thinkers who thought censoring anti-racism was bad: he was already pro-racism and pro-censorship before he created the group chats.
The problem here seems to be the income inequality & the power of money to win elections that give the uber-rich their disproportionate power.
I wonder if this accounts for counter cultural movements in response? i.e. Deplatforming might be effective tactically but risks strengthening ideological resistance when used broadly or visibly.
GWB didn't strike me as someone who could come up with the idea of prolonged Mideast conflict on his own. The think tanks that infiltrated his mind like the movie Inception is not unlike what is being described in the article. It's tough to accept how impressionable we are regardless of age. Just in tech companies we know salesman get into the ears of leadership and sell them on all sorts of ideas.
Even though Gen Z is under constant assault by Influencers, I think they are probably sharper about spotting it similar to how GenX/Millennials were to crude marketing. They are the generation that can combat this, but at the same time they are also the generation that most likely will perpetuate it.
During the Roman republic the thing that made something like a Ceasar was a standing army. If you had a standing army you had power. Some of these powerful people have standing armies on social media and thus have power over the narrative. It's a few times removed from having men with guns, but it is the same abstraction.
HN thread about the 2024 post referenced in the OP:
Group chats rule the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40660867 - June 2024 (184 comments)
Here's a fun project idea. Take as input tweets, articles, etc, from various politicians and think tanks. Then generate a mapping of who is probably in a Signal chat with one another, and at what point in time.
I could imagine if the model was very good and well done, to even generate names for the chats, in a UI where clicking into it could show a graph of involvement, ideas likely shared, and approximate timelines. Perhaps clicking into the ideas could lead to details on the history / corruption of the idea, etc.
People do this already, but the signal (heh) detected by that kind of analysis isn't consumption of shared media. That's weak‚ and near the noise floor. The much stronger component is just dissemination of deliberate talking points, which happens all the time. What you need to add is the ability to discriminate the spinsters from the "real people", which is basically impossible.
As always, Chris Rufo lays the game out in plain terms:
> Rufo had been there all along: “I looked at these chats as a good investment of my time to radicalize tech elites who I thought were the most likely and high-impact new coalition partners for the right.”
> Christopher Ferguson Rufo (born August 26, 1984) is an American conservative activist,[1][2] New College of Florida board member, and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.[3] He is an opponent of critical race theory. He is a former documentary filmmaker and former fellow at the Discovery Institute, the Claremont Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.[4][5][6]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Rufo
Signal chats are the new "clubhouse"?
I have some hot take for this phenomena.
As tech elites lost their untouchable image of being pure prodigies and visionaries, it became clearer — especially after scandals like Cambridge Analytica — that many of them operate like ordinary, ruthless capitalists. Public trust declined as more people moved online and more abuses came to light. Instead of fully acknowledging this shift, many of these elites seem to interpret the criticism — much of which comes from media and universities, which do lean left — as purely ideological attacks. From my perspective, it’s a textbook case of cognitive dissonance: their self-image as bold innovators clashes with how they are increasingly seen from the outside, and the natural human reaction is to blame the critics rather than adjust the self-image.
It's funny that the "economic anxiety" thesis for the rise in populism might also apply to tech elites. They hardly cared a few years back when the NYT and other liberal media organs started bashing tech nonstop while the boom was in full swing. Then they started swinging to the right just as the previous administration started unwinding ZIRP.
It's also clear that the big players always thought these things. In this article, Andreessen got mad and founded right-wing echo chambers because left-wing thinkers though censoring anti-racists was bad. Musk has been an egregiously racist person in an egregiously racist family and has never respected the rule of law.
For a while these people felt like they had to pretend to be decent, pro-social humans so they could keep making money: that seems great. More people should pretend not to be racist assholes.
I wonder how much of this is that they got so rich "you can't make more money" stopped being a meaningful threat.
I would say they really believed it all and weren't "bad" at the start because they perceived themselves as enlighted individuals. Then first scandals appeared and they got stuck in echo chambers and endless cope driven circle jerk.
For me the cringiest part of all is sudden strong urge to appear strong and masculine. It is always full package.
This tracks with my experience here, watching tech thought leaders. Obviously Andreesen went very hard right, as did Musk, but just in general the tech elite suddenly and surprisingly turned Trumpy over the last few years; Ackman being a really good case study.
Note that pg himself took a fairly surpising reactionary turn in right about the 2020/2021 timeframe this article describes. A guy who'd always been a left-center pragmatist suddenly was yelling in public tweets about the Campus Left's Desire for Cancellation and whatnot.
Those of us closer to the trenches never really did get the ire here: I mean, yeah, kids are intemperate jerks, but they've always been intemperate jerks. And the tech community... has always celebrated the idea behind the intemperate jerk and an engine for change and disruption. Let the ideas fight it out and pick winners and all, right? Suddenly these billionaires were all snowflakes looking to a political realignment to save them?
This article goes a long way to explaining why.
Maybe Paul Graham was simply protecting his station within the oligarchy all along. The turn toward appeasing fascism is nothing more than the path of least resistance. But I'm sure he'll write some blogs warning of complacency and send some tweets on Musk's nazi propaganda site. He's one of the good ones.
I've looked at pg:s tweets recently and was surprised that he takes issue with both the genocide in Palestine and the university related disappearings. I had expected him to be more radical and aligned with the current regime.
pg has been yelling about the Campus Left's Desire for Cancellation for years and years (I want to say since 2011?). It's been very frustrating to watch because lots of us identified this as right wing propaganda that (imo) pg was unwittingly participating in.
I think you’re right but would also add the nascent tech worker organization during the same period. I think many of these guys were bitterly resentful of the idea of workers trying to unionize or otherwise negotiate on a more even level, and that made the general political concerns very personal.
Not just tech unions but the brief shift in tech labor power also saw phenomena like the Great Resignation, overemployment, quiet quitting, etc.
Yea, no matter how left-leaning the business owners are, the second that labor gets even a smidgen of power, they all suddenly turn into Ronald Reagans.
[flagged]
Virtually everyone in the echo chambers you frequent are anti woke. That doesn't apply at scale, where people aren't willing to accept your "woke" shorthand.
My understanding of "woke" is levelling the playing field & being aware of your biases so you can be a better human. It's hard for me to imagine someone being against "all humans are equal & deserve equal access to opportunity, if they have the skill & motivation." I know people are out there who don't believe everyone is equal, maybe that's the "anti woke" you speak of?
Either way, "woke" as a term is poorly defined to the point I immediately disengage when someone starts screeching about it, because it means nothing and now the rest of the conversation is pointless.
>Today, virtually everyone is anti-woke.
I have yet to hear a coherent description of what "woke" even fucking means that doesn't ultimately dissolve into a pot-pourri of personal grievances.
When I was a (white) youth in the just recently desegregated south, they had a word they called me when I stood up for my black friends and neighbors. They don't feel like they can say that one anymore so they got a new word. They mean what they have always meant by it.
> I have yet to hear a coherent description of what "woke" even fucking means that doesn't ultimately dissolve into a pot-pourri of personal grievances.
Exactly - that's the entire point of a dogwhistle.
I have yet to understand what a dog whistle is in this regard but in response to quickslowdown's reply, I can only best describe 'woke' as using victimhood as the means to justify(?) their ephemeral power(?) in whatever context they deem fit? /shrug
A dog whistle is speech that's ambiguous enough for a speaker to claim "Well I wasn't talking about that" whenever they receive blowback for a thing they said, but mean it and communicate their meaning if there's no blowback.
To parent's point, the bullshit of the right's current definition of wokeness is that it's "things we don't like."
Which is about as useful as people calling something "problematic."
If there were firmer ideological underpining to the right's platform, I'd be willing to listen.
But currently, more words are spent complaining about and accusing others than talking about what they want to do.
> [woke is] using victimhood as the means to justify(?) their ephemeral power(?) in whatever context they deem fit?
Isn't that what the right is doing now?
I.e. we're victims, so we're justified in using our temporary political power to do whatever we want
> If there were firmer ideological underpining to the right's platform, I'd be willing to listen.
But there isn't and will never be imo, as human behavior cannot be hard-categorized into easy to understand boxes. Just as a light example, look at the former D's that were appointed and confirmed by the current administration. Would you say they have accepted a level of the Right's conformity over their original/core beliefs?
Using Bessent and Navarro as examples, they both have ideological underpinings to their approaches.
Unfortunately (for the world) they're also contradictory.
And the administration doesn't seem capable of enunciating a coherent decision as to which guides its policy -- instead it's last-man-in-the-room-ism.
I think if it really was the case that Trump's 2nd term appointees had been all right-leaning, the narrative that he is a _fascist dictator_ would have held more weight. But it hasn't as a sort of compromise or willingness to meet closer to the center.
Whereas inversely, a true-to-life dictator XJP whom there is no perceived dissent within his congress or at minimum ever widely publicized or disseminated. Maybe this is the ideological stability you are looking for?
"Woke" just means "admitting actual history happened".
It is impossible to be an actual nerd and not be woke. Money-men "founders" have nothing but distain for the geeks that made them rich.
[Edit: I see people don't like this, but are simply down-voting rather than engaging. What is your definition of "woke" then, if not an awareness of America's history?]
Do you still believe in the ideals of the Enlightment?
If you do, most of the left, under that banner of "woke" would find it right to oppose you.
> Complaining about wokeness doesn't make you right-wing, much less reactionary.
Honestly given the impact, I'd say complaining about "wokeness" pretty much defines "reactionary". Pronouns and flopsy straws never hurt nobody, and kids have been calling their elders racists and rapists and whatnot for generations.
Something happened to convince tech folks that "wokeness" was somehow a threat, when it clearly wasn't and never will be. And that something is interesting, and probably of a piece with whatever was going on in the echo chamber these folks found themselves in.
> Pronouns and flopsy straws never hurt nobody
That's not all wokeness is. There's also the anti-merit stuff, which seeks to e.g. get rid of standardized tests or even remove algebra from school curricula. Then there's racial discrimination in hiring and admissions, which is often so cartoonishly stupid you can't make it up (e.g. https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...).
> Something happened to convince tech folks that "wokeness" was somehow a threat, when it clearly wasn't and never will be
People hated wokeness so much they became single-issue voters. That was short-sighted, but it doesn't mean they were wrong to oppose wokeness.
Characterizing those issues the way you do, instead of as considered and real efforts to do good stuff in the real world, is precisely the result of the echo chamber in question. It really doesn't occur to you to at least nod to the fact that some of us see things differently?
People can be wrong and not "woke" (which you're clearly using to connote "evil" or "enemy"). The slide from reasoned discussion into hyperbolic nonsense is precisely what the article is about. And specifically that the same thing happens to billionaire brains too.
I don't dispute that these are "efforts to do good stuff in the real world". It's just very obvious that they are having the opposite effect. I don't kow what that has to do with an "echo chamber".
> People can be wrong and not "woke" (which you're clearly using to connote "evil" or "enemy").
Of course they can. The Trump administration is wrong and unwoke. I did not use "woke" to connote "evil" or "enemy". Where are you getting that? I mentioned specific cases where "wokeness" has led to bad policy.
> It's just very obvious that they are having the opposite effect. I don't kow what that has to do with an "echo chamber".
Yikes. When something is "very obvious" to you, to the extent that you find yourself exasperated by everyone else's inability to see the obvious truth you're taking as a prior... You are almost certainly in an echo chamber.
The stuff you sneer about here has real argument around it. It's not as dumb as you clearly think it is. Does that mean you're wrong? No! But it means you're not thinking clearly. It's time to talk to some woke DEI hippie school board members or admissions officers or whatever, and maybe see if you can find out what they actually think about gender or racial justice or whatever.
You jump from bizarre accusation to bizarre accusation.
Here's my go at diagnosing you (and this goes for many people in this thread): the centerpeice of your worldview has been "liberals good, conservatives bad" for your entire life. Now, when faced with clear evidence of well-meaning liberals enacting harmful policies in the name of "racial justice," your brain short-circuits and you start sputtering gibberish (or arguing semantics, e.g."you can't define wokeness!").
The way out is to admit that liberals are human, they make mistakes, and "wokeness" and its associated policies are examples of this. Don't worry, after you start seeing reality more clearly, you can still vote for the Democrats! They're still better than Trump!
> your brain short-circuits and you start sputtering gibberish
Exactly. I think we know which of us is in an echo chamber.
"Remove algebra from the school curricula" is a lie. The decision that made noise was about eliminating accelerated algebra classes where people take algebra ahead of the normal schedule. Whether you think that is dumb or not, it is not "removing algebra from the school curricula."
They (CA) are dumbing down what we teach children (delaying Algebra I, or replacing it with "data science or statistics") because there are racial disparities in test scores. That's the result of wokeness, and it's bad.
Like I said, you can think it is bad if you want. But what happened wasn't "removing algebra from the curriculum."
> Today, virtually everyone is anti-woke
I am not a fan of a lot of the tenets associated with "wokeness", but this is just totally wrong.
None of the very left people I know would describe themselves as anti-woke...but they all make it very clear that they find wokeness (or whatever you want to call it) ridiculous.
I wish when people use the term woke they would say what they actually mean. I suspect they don't because they don't want to be seen as racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever. What do you mean by woke?
"Woke" is the right's word that means "Anything I don't like." Similar to what "fascist" means when the left says it.
This is fairly anecdotal.
Ah you're right next time I'll do a study before posting my opinion on the internet.
The "left" is huge and diverse (which people don't know because left-wing thinkers don't get the adoration and amplification right-wing thinkers do in this country.)
I am guessing you are referring to Marxist-Lennonists, or even Tankies. Folks who believe that only class oppression is worth fighting, and that the solution is centralized authoritarian regimes with left wing people in power. Those folks are generally anti-liberal, despite being on the left, and deny any history that would complicate their politics.
Alternatively, you might know neoliberals, who believe in the power of capitalism to address social problems and deny any history that might complicate their politics.
Or you might know Syndicalists, who believe unions are the path to worker's political power, and who deny any history that might complicate their politics.
Etc.
If you know one "very left" person, you know one very left person.
“Wokeness” is an elusive term that is the best attempt to describe a wildly variable but seemingly consistent pattern of beliefs and actions. My left-side friends disavow “wokeness” but still agree with many of the problems “woke folk” identify.
As an outsider, it seems like the moniker of woke best applies to the pattern of thinking that broad problems have a simple and heavy handed solutions. Furthermore, criticizing such solutions will put you in the same camp as those committing the offense, even though you may agree about the problem.
I think it's significant that the comment you're replying to didn't use 'woke'.
> Today, virtually everyone is anti-woke.
I'd extend your claim. Tautologically, everyone is anti-woke.
Wokeness isn't hard to define. If you don't know what it is at this point, there's really no helping you.
One of the lessons of the second Trump admin is that "smashing wokeness" may feel good (to people like me for example) but it isn't actually very important, and it doesn't make up for incompetence and lawlessness.
If people don't know what it is when they see it then perhaps it does not particularly affect their lives in any appreciable way.
Your comment is actually an example of the echo chambers left and right wing people live and breathe in.
Out in, "what the F are you idiots doing with our economy"-land. There are exactly zero people who give a mosquito's dick about Woke DEI Trumpanzees or whatever.
These are issues important to elites. We tend to live in an echo chamber here on HN, so we think it's important to the guys working as hired hands during the day and the walmart stock shift at night.
Let me tell you, out here in flyover country, no one working at Taco bell cares about what you care about. Woke, anti-Woke, digital privacy, owning the libtards, stopping the right wing conspiracy, they don't care about any of it. There's a lot of pain out here, and they're way too busy to even worry about that useless crap.
We had an election in Wisconsin recently that the right wingers sailed in with millions on millions of dollars to try to win. Ended up losing handily. Why? Because they talked about a lot of things that, while they may have meaning outside of opioid country, don't mean a whole lot inside of it.
I just don't think elites get it. And that's dangerous.
[flagged]
The "kids" are not the ones kidnapping people who disagree with them.
Bill Maher still has a show, despite having spent more than twenty-five years being a racist POS. There is no such thing as "Cancel Culture": there are just people who are SUPER mad that their kids think their racism is bad.
"I have been silenced!"[1] says the side with all three branches of government, owns newspapers and TV stations, business leaders and executives in front of microphones all the time. But, yea--they're the ones that are being silenced.
1: https://leftycartoons.com/2018/08/01/i-have-been-silenced/
The idea of shutting down ideas is itself an idea that can be fought by other ideas. Those kids do not actually control institutions that can enforce the shutting down of ideas, even if cultural mores might have temporarily aligned with their positions from time to time.
Well, they're learning from the adults.
Soon as Trump's term started he started removing any mention of slavery from the Smithsonian cuz 'merica.
That's really the concerning thing. Liberals and conservatives not only dislike ideas, they dislike history and facts. That's what makes them dangerous.
On the left it seems you at least had a few moderates who had the good sense to keep the wing nuts in line. We tried the right, thinking we might get better governance, and have discovered, to our collective horror, that the right is wing nuts the whole way down. So you get things like tariffs, and purges, and wild 4$$ ravings about plane crashes being caused by too many blacks.
In the US we need to take things back in hand or it really will be way too late to do anything. These extremists will run the nation right into the ground.
The fact that these group chats were behind the Chesa Boudin recall campaign should surprise no-one.
Turns out the Swamp is Signal group chats.
Two other sets of powerful people in group chats doing bad things:
- https://www.leefang.com/p/inside-the-pro-israel-information - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/16/business-le...
HN seems loathe to have any meaningful discussion about or reflection on how and why notable SV figures seemed primed to embrace the Trump/MAGA right (see, for example, quote in OP from Chris Rufo). I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn.
Also, after articles like these, will calls for "viewpoint diversity" finally apply to conservatives who chase out even the moderates from their spheres? After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article.
> I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn.
The clear contention in the linked article is that it's neither. It's just plain old group think fed by an echo chamber. You take a genuine-but-isolated affront or conflict[1], tie it to one or two other less important side issues[2], and then just line everyone up on the "good" or "bad" side of a line. Before you know it our community is cheering the return of a regime that literally tried to stage a coup and making tortuous excuses for why we need to be deporting four year old citizens with cancer.
It's 4chan. It's just 4chan all over again.
[1] Ex: the anti-elite current within the lefty political sphere that has never really loved the idea of making common cause with SV billionaires.
[2] Middle aged dudes, demographically, tend to be a little squicked out by trans rights and pronouns and LGBTQ+ issues, think paper straws are dumb as fuck, and really hated seeing stuff burned down in protets.
There was lots of resentment against unionization efforts from tech workers -- workers who were increasingly seen as ungrateful insurgents trying to mess up a good thing -- and tech oligarchs decided that everyone left of center was exactly like tech workers in Silicon Valley. For them, leftists are infected with a "mind virus", and needing some enlightened elites to save them from themselves. Of course there's no self-reflection about the mind virus that causes folks like Andreesen to use the philosophy of meth addicted neo-Nazis[1] as the ideological basis for their new political order.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Land
Like all other forums, public and private, HN has an ideological filter. I'm as surprised as the next person that the HN ideological filter turned out not to be permissive enough to discuss the downfall of the free society that fostered its creation.
The oligarchs will not lose their freedom or power and they won't fight (or even inconvenience themselves) to preserve yours. Next time you're reading a blog or a biography of a tech billionaire, remember that they got their wealth from wage theft and they will keep their power by destroying yours.
The only law tech companies -- and the oligarchs that own and control them -- have to obey is allegiance to Trump. No other law will be enforced.
> Like all other forums, public and private, HN has an ideological filter. I'm as surprised as the next person that the HN ideological filter turned out not to be permissive enough to discuss the downfall of the free society that fostered its creation.
Is it that surprising? As a longtime member, this seems perfectly consistent with the general bent of the website. Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility". Those same expectations are weaponized to drive out dissenting voices, which creates a positive[0] feedback loop.
Honestly, if anything, I'm surprised that this comment thread is (reasonably) lucid, because that's not how a lot of other comment threads recently on similar issues have gone.
[0] In the literal (non-normative) sense: a positive feedback loop is one which amplifies the effects, whether or not the end effects are "good" or "bad".
> Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility".
HN also does the same for far left authoritarian ideologies, those are also here and upvoted. I don't see how this pushes out anyone.
> HN also does the same for far left authoritarian ideologies, those are also here and upvoted.
Appropriately, this reply (which is exactly what I was expecting) is itself an example of the effect I'm describing: the false presumption that two point which can be distinguished are inherently equivalent and comparable.
> I don't see how this pushes out anyone.
Given your other extensive other comments about these topics, I can understand why you don't think this dynamic would push anyone out, and I also don't think we're going to see eye to eye on any of this.
I believe in the Scandinavian model. Which means socialized healthcare and free higher education, atheist education, and abortion rights, but also means voter ID, kick out illegal immigrants, right to work, no affirmative action in college admission etc.
I think you Americans are crazy both on the left and the right, I am criticizing the left more since that is more represented here, there is no need to criticizing the right since so many do it already.
[flagged]
> After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article.
The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view. Backlash against the majority view is much harder to come by. And being in the majority and supporting minority perspectives is more uncomfortable, and frankly much easier to opt-out of if there is sufficient discomfort.
If that were true, Republicans would spend a lot less effort on voter suppression & wouldn't have needed to have the Supreme Court repeal the Voting Rights Act in order to win.
This is orthogonal to my point. Modern Republicans are populists who try to appeal to the majority constituency. But their policies are generally so bad (and mean-spirited) that they don't have broad appeal even amongst that group.
> The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view.
Be specific and put up numbers.
There is a wide, wide swath of issues where the "liberal" position is the majoritarian one.
Conservative positions are generally pro-hetero, white, and Christian. Also male, but that is the one where they're not the majority, but very close to 50/50.
There are "liberal" positions that are popular, but generally the current big conservative pushes are against minority populations. E.g., DEI, trans, immigrants (from certain countries), etc...
You present it as a dichotomy when that's not actually the case. I'm heterosexual and white, but I don't see how policies that e.g. allow gay people to marry - a stereotypically "liberal" position - harm me in any way.
There are some things where it's a zero-sum game, such as affirmative action. And those do in fact tend to be less popular even among liberals (as evidenced by referendums on those topics in blue states). But that's a relatively small part of the overall liberal platform.
[dead]
So like, is knowing someone who knows someone in these chats the key to getting your family out of the concentration camp, just like knowing someone who knows someone who works at Google is the key to getting your account unlocked?
Post facto, it seems given the monster that these people have actually unleashed and empowered, the preemptive negative reactions to what they had been saying in public were actually pretty fucking justified. And I say this with the perspective of someone who generally believes in open debate, hates cancel culture, and who was reading Yarvin as he was writing under the Moldbug nym and found much of his analysis compelling. But it always struck me that Yarvin came to the exact wrong conclusion wanting to run thermodynamics backwards. Even Urbit, I had thought there was something novel and universal there, until I realized it was actually just describing another Java 1.0 dressed up in fancy equations and four-letter words. Like sure, if you could travel back in time and make all computing equipment run Urbit, Java, or Rust that sure would make a lot of things easy. Except in the real world, other languages already exist and have anchoring utility that is likely to keep them existing.
I keep pondering a steelmanning of this idea of the Elite Jewish Conspiracy, pushing this radical acceptance of non-traditional lifestyles onto our society through various distributed leadership positions. I think that needed to get more mainstream treatment - stepping back and looking at it impartially, does this not seem an awful lot like what one would expect as counterbalance to the cultural memory of the Shoah? An attempt to prevent such an utter industrial-scale waste of human life and potential in the name of uniformity from ever happening again? And maybe the right answer is that we needed to get past its cloying overreactions, incorporate it into our baseline society, and move forward - instead of giving in to the simpleheaded authoritarian powermongers promising to simplify the world for us if only we hand them the power with a mandate to destroy.
Edit: I think I misread the comment somewhat—sorry. I've restored it, and will autocollapse this moderation bit.
---
> getting your family out of the concentration camp
Could you please not take HN threads straight into flamewar hell like this? We're trying for something quite different here, and it's way too aggressive to kick off a thread with rhetoric like that.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Up thread there is somebody who is using the phrase "rabid" multiple times to describe the left. And you comment here?
People being illegally sent to CECOT is a major nationwide story right now that is real and pertinent.
When I commented here, there was only that comment. I can't reply to posts that don't exist yet!
We’re talking about the group chats that may have “changed America” into a place where our president pays foreign dictators to house criminals in a overcrowded prison, and where they may be debating sending American citizens. When exactly is the aforementioned rhetoric appropriate, when it’s too late?
It seems to me directly in line with the nature of the article as written, the tech context we currently live in, and i don’t think it’s against HN guidelines to speak uncomfortably truths. In fact it seems core to what we’re trying to do here.
Thanks for all you do here, not trying to turn this place into Twitter, but I also think it’s important that we not fall into the trap of not being willing to confront the outrageous truths of what’s happening in our community because the rational response is outrageous.
I don’t think I have ever disagreed with you dang, except in this case. The comment seemed thoughtful to me.
I appreciate the reply. My reaction, like most moderation comments, was shallow and limited in scope to what I know about forum dynamics. If you come out swinging with Nazi references, you're turning the knobs to 11 from the start. That's not compatible with the kind of discussion HN is going for. It's particularly troublesome when the thread is new, because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions. Also it's not as if that was the only such reference in the comment.
Reading it the next morning, though, I think I misread what mindslight meant by "getting your family out of the concentration camp". Now that I'm reading it differently, I can see how my reply came across as too heavy-handed. Sorry all!
Hey, we appreciate you, dang. More than you probably will ever know. That this community is still what it is... it blows me away, and it is in large part due to your vigilance. Thank you.
“Concentration camp” is not necessarily a Nazi reference. The British invented them and the current US administration is reinventing them.
Agreed. We had them in the US in the 40's for Japanese Americans.
Based on your lack of action on right wing extremist comments, I do not believe in the sincerity of your recalcitrance.
I'm afraid that's sample bias. We've done exactly the same kind of moderation countless times on all wings of commenters for many years.
You're right that not every comment which should be moderated actually gets moderated, but this is not because we're secretly on one side or the other. It's because we don't see most of what gets posted here. There's far too much of it to read, and we can't moderate what we don't see. If you see a post like that going unmoderated, the most likely explanation is that we just didn't see it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).
To politically passionate users, it always feels like the mods are against them and secretly in cahoots with the other side, but this is an illusion (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). If it helps at all, the other side has exactly the same complaint, just with the political bit flipped. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26368875 for a plethora of quotes; they're years old now, but the phenomenon is perennial. Here are a few more recent cases:
HN is mainly left leaning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43559670 (April 2025)
HN has turned into a far-left hive-mind https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43214821 (March 2025)
this website is effectively a leftist filter bubble and you do nothing to address it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43146049 (Feb 2025)
a hard liberal-progressive tilt https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43136198 (Feb 2025)
a prog-left echo chamber https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43133747 (Feb 2025)
an echo-chamber of left-wing lunatics https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42576474 (Jan 2025)
I have interacted with you before and want to believe you but then I see comments in the same post like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43823412
> We got complaints about your use of the word "rabid" and I think they have a point. That crosses into name-calling in the sense that the HN guidelines ask you not to do.
> If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
This is in response to someone who is violating the rules on extremist/flame bait/trolling with a right wing bent. It appears that you were pointed out this comment based on the inclusion of the word “rabid”.
Now instead of coming in as a mod enforcing impartial rules, you’ve added words that give the tone that you are only admonishing this person because they got snitched on.
If I believed you were impartial then even if you were pointed out this instance of rule breaking by an impartial observer, I would still expect you to treat it in a neutral manner.
I understand after reading your links that I am probably falling to some sort of bias when I called you out on this particular, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone these days
Would it help you build some trust if I, as the original commenter in this thread and long time HN user with showdead=yes, said I have not noticed an overriding left/right bent to moderation? There are definitely topics and periods where there is more frenetic energy from the "left" or the "right" causing more heated comments, but this is not a moderation bias.
And I agree that my original comment was treading the line in a few places! I think some of that is necessary these days, as I said in a follow up. Honestly I'm still reeling a bit from dang's response of effectively 'oh, you were talking about the current concentration camp? carry on then'. Because yes - I wish that term were still unnecessarily inflammatory.
(also FWIW the other "right wing" comment you're talking about is actually coming from a "left" perspective. I don't think it's an appropriate response to this topic, and I'm personally past that kind of self-flagellation because the time to focus on fighting the "rabid progressivism" is when it has power. But we're all processing this in our own ways)
[dead]
The US has done literal concentration camps at least twice, has a literal torture camp we rent in Cuba explicitly to get around the "inalienable" rights of people in the US, and the current admin has literally sent people to an active concentration camp in El Salvador, and has joked about sending "homegrown" people to this camp and that El Salvador will have to build more as they blatantly ignore the courts telling them to bring people back.
This is asinine Dang. Making references to REALITY as it exists right now is not "flamewar".
The HN guidelines have never required people to ignore reality.
Discussing concentration camps in the context of the US has never been "flamewar" territory. This is like when Google bans your account for showing historical footage of atrocities. Whitewashing reality like this is gross.
Did you miss where I apologized for misreading mindslight's comment?
Your post would make more sense if I hadn't added the "Edit" bit to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817409 (nor posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43824481 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43823390). But I did that more than 24 hours before you posted this.
I certainly appreciate that you apologized openly but that was a comment you made in the guise of "Site Moderator". Those comments sometimes come with corrective actions, and are specifically meant to shape behavior. They have been used to shape MY behavior.
I'm pretty sure I've been chided before for making a drive by comment on this site, but that seems to have been the case here, in your official role.
>On the other hand, other people would probably have misread it in the same way, so the point still applies, just not as much, and probably not enough to justify my mod response.
>At first I read it as a gratuitous Holocaust reference (i.e. some sort of throwaway flamebait)
Part of my response is that I cannot fathom even a little bit the way you mistakenly read the comment in such a way, unless you just barely even see the comments you are moderating. Was this driven by a "concentration camp" auto-moderator or something?
It's frustrating how often we are told to trust that you moderate fairly, that any concerns we have are just "sampling bias" or confirmation bias, that we can't really discuss or doubt the rules, that definitely no vote manipulation happens, but we also cannot expect you to read the sentence containing the supposed reference?
IDK, man, I was just surprised.
It's a straightforward reference that shouldn't be controversial to anyone looking to substantively discuss what is happening to our society. I know there are a lot of true believers and bots that want to shout down uncomfortable truths which makes for flamewar, but if we let that prevent good faith discussion then we might as well throw in the towel because that reality distortion field isn't going away.
I thought the rest of my comment was insightful as well, despite having to trade in some inflammatory terms. We're apparently at a time of pulling on these threads that had remained unpulled. The only way forward is to hash these uncomfortable ideas out in the open. Because as the article describes, they're certainly getting pulled on in less public forums where other uncomfortable truths have an easier time remaining unvisited.
Looking it at again the next morning, I think I just misread your opening sentence. Sorry! (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43823347)
On the other hand, other people would probably have misread it in the same way, so the point still applies, just not as much, and probably not enough to justify my mod response.
This may be a little embarrassing, but I don't read people's comments very closely. There isn't time, and it isn't necessary. It does mean I sometimes guess things wrong, though, (moderation is guesswork*) and that sucks.
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Well, thank you for looking again! I'm curious how you interpreted it? I thought about swapping around the two parts of the sentence to put the familiar context first, but thought it landed better the way I said it.
On the original topic, because I will acknowledge that my comment did have several bits of dry tinder in it - the sin of my lead in sentence was that it was irreverant. It would have been inappropriate if it were responding to another comment. But I think there has to be more leeway in initial comments so that there is a chance of moving past the politicized pit of arguing about whether something even exists, and towards a less-widely-shared but larger understanding such that we might actually do something about it.
I think the fundamental problem here is that we as a country now have something that can be straightforwardly referred to as a concentration camp. There are probably other terms that are more technically accurate, but not so much as to forgo the cultural touchstone of what we're actually really close to.
I'd say you are in a similar position to maybe 2016ish or so (my own mental timeline is a bit hazy), when the tide had just started to turn against the prevailing "woke [0] brigade", and insightful but not-completely-defensively-worded comments would get jumped on by a bunch of reasonably-phrased but inflammatorily-framed comments, making it seem like the original comment was starting the flamewar.
[0] I personally hate this term like others hate "concentration camp", but it's awfully hard to argue against its current utility, regardless of how far from its original meaning it is.
> I'm curious how you interpreted it
At first I read it as a gratuitous Holocaust reference (i.e. some sort of throwaway flamebait). Later I realized you were probably referring to ongoing current events. One can agree or disagree but that at least wasn't gratuitous.
This is vile dan. What do you believe we should call a prison complex holding forty thousand humans on the basis of their social affiliations, tried en masse or not at all, never known to have released a single one? I'm flexible on nomenclature but if you're going to veto I think you should suggest an alternative.
You’re ok with the idea of steelmanning the Elite Jewish Conspiracy but you take issue with this? Reevaluate your priorities, man.
I could have made it more obvious, but I was objecting to all the flamebait in that comment.
But really, this sort of "you're ok with X?" gotcha argument is an internet trope of the kind we don't want here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So, just in case you missed my point -
I vastly preferred the world in which we could leave the "Elite Jewish Conspiracy" thread unpulled, and write off the rare person mentioning those words as some crackpot. But the reactionaries have been pulling hard on these types of threads, and using the bland generic negative responses to drive even more engagement - "see THEY don't even let you talk about it!". So like maybe we - the "left" if you prefer that narrower label, but really "actually-conservatives" (as in we actually respect the institutions and values of our society, rather than merely pretending to) - need to start tackling these topics head on?
Putting my original point a different way - maybe we need to stop taking the mild widespread pushing of societal tolerance/progressivism/etc from our institutions for granted, and acknowledge it as a hard-won asset created from the horrors of World War II? Like the rightist machine of unquestioned hierarchical execution has and likely will always exist in our society, so if there's some ever present cloying refrain of "don't embrace the rightists" expressed throughout our institutions and media is that really surprising? The alternative is to give the rightist forces of top-down control a blank check, which they will eagerly embrace to carry out individual-prerogative sadism as we're currently seeing.
[flagged]
Whether you align or don't align with these politics, I find it generally distasteful when private chats are leaked. There's clearly some expectations of privacy (using Signal with expiring messages) and someone leaking this really destroys trust and open communication. It causes people to not engage in open dialog and to move to even smaller and smaller circles. This ends up stifling open and honest debate and results in more narrow, provincial views of the world.
And for what? For clicks? To tell on someone? To smear someone? What "good" was accomplished from this leak and this article? Some advertiser dollars were made -- probably a trivial amount compared to the value of honest debate among the most powerful in tech.
> I find it generally distasteful when private chats are leaked.
The best private chats are those with a few vetted members who understand the consequences of a leak. However, this doesn't fully protect the chat because the leaker, especially if he or she is a skilled liar, could remain anonymous indefinitely.
A common thread among leaks is that people post salacious content under their real names (or pseudonyms that are easily traced) under the guise they are sharing in a "safe space." Nothing is safe from a serial screenshotter.
It's not unreasonable to say that the more outsized influence you have over others, the less privacy you can expect to preserve against them (or the harder you have to work to maintain it), both ethically and practically.
There's pretty wide intolerance for leaking everyday discussion by everyday people, but some people are in a position where their actions can very greatly impact others and some of their relationships and discussions have bearing on that. You can't be surprised if the potentially-impacted seek to seize transparency even where it's not handed to them.
> And for what? For clicks? To tell on someone? To smear someone?
To stop them from doing what they are trying to do. The goals they are working towards are malign & repugnant and this makes them my adversaries. I'm not interested in a fair fight with a neosegregationist billionaires' coup. They certainly aren't going to give me a sporting chance.
For what it's worth, nothing was leaked in this article except for the existence of these chats. There are no screenshots, and very few concrete details other than some information about membership timelines.
This article contains genuine reporting about the right-wing influencers working to shift the opinions of the richest people in the USA. That seems like a large amount of good to me.
Nah, screw these people. Right wing billionaires actively courting and trying to influence their peers in business and media? This is the smoke-filled room as a group chat with disappearing messages. What good was done here? Well, hopefully, people realize that Marc Andreessen is neglecting his responsibilities to post all day and David Sacks whines when people challenge him. I want to know who's hanging out with Chris Rufo and Tucker Carlson, or introducing oped columnists to Curtis Yarvin, and I want it to be abundantly clear that they suck.
To give an unrelated example, there's currently a huge drama explosion in the vtuber world due to Person X trying to strongarm an artist into not working with Person Y, while X and Y being ostensibly best friends with each other in public.
People do not like being lied to, and they especially do not like someone lying to them while concretely making their life worse.
> compared to the value of honest debate among the most powerful in tech
Yet again this seems to be using "honest" as code for "racism".
[flagged]
We got complaints about your use of the word "rabid" and I think they have a point. That crosses into name-calling in the sense that the HN guidelines ask you not to do.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
OK, sorry for violating the decorum. At the time I wrote it, thought it was an apt term, about behavior by "my own team", but point taken, and I think I have a better sense of the rule now, thank you.
Appreciated!
(I'm a bit squeamish about the word decorum but that's me being nitpicky)
You should interpret "not being able to posit your idea" as your idea losing so hard in the marketplace that people refuse to even consider it.
The right is winning elections and your side is not. Maybe consider stop being alienating liberals long enough to build a coalition that wins elections?
Eventually the Democrats are going to recognize that hardline "if you're not with us, you're against us" progressives are costing more votes than they're worth and show them the door.
The "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality is exactly what won the current administration. People like the image of a strong man with his own opinions. Democrats have been retreating to the center on nearly every policy position, and it clearly isn't working.
The disinvitation data is so incredibly small that there's no way on earth we can call this "rabid." In Haidt and Fukuyama's "The Coddling of the American Mind" they present data on disinvitations attempts. And it is in the tens of attempts nationwide. They even have to present the data with Milo Yiannopoulos removed since he made up a considerable portion of all disinvitation attempts.
You can think that students are foolish for doing this. You can choose to stop donating because of a response by an institution. But to use this to claim that the left has "gone rabid" is ridiculous given the actual data.
The students' behavior is not what drove voters towards the reactionary right. Breathless media coverage that blew this behavior completely out of proportion is responsible for this.
Campus talk de-invitings are only small part of the set of behavior I was referring to.
(I was sloppy, and didn't integrate the anecdote well as I wrote the comment, so I think the anecdote confused my message more than helped.)
My general observation is that none of these things (witch hunting, attacking, or deplatforming from the left) happen at any scale to merit their coverage other than perhaps "public figures get yelled at on twitter."
And, I dunno, I feel like the fact that my friends who aren't public figures but do research on climate change get weekly death threats just seems more important than the fact that people yell at JK Rowling online for being transphobic.
That's awful about your friends, and I agree there appears to be a huge general problem with that kind of thing. I hope the FBI are able to help, on at least a case-by case basis, if they can't solve the pipeline problem.
I still think there's a large problem with a dominant mode of interaction we're seeing by much of the left-leaning (it's pervasive online, and transparent pandering and manipulation in left-appealing news shows), and that it's hurting more than it's helping.
I agree that there are people on the left who are mean online and that they shouldn't generally act this way. I just think that
1. This largely ends here (there are exceptions, and it is definitely no fun to be yelled at online)
2. The right has consistently acted in all of the same ways (plus more bomb threats) to no similar criticism
3. The political strategy of the left cannot require "literally everybody online is on their best behavior all of the time."
And no, law enforcement is absolutely uninterested in dealing with death threats sent by people who think that doing research on climate change is evil. The idea that the FBI would help out is odd to me.
Understood, though I didn't have that idea about #2. My impression was that it was a well-known problem (going back to talk radio and Rupert Murdoch properties, and then growing and being more in our face with everything the Internet enabled).
Maybe one of the problems is that, online, a flood of dozens of angry tweets stomping on someone, by (for the sake of argument) a small minority of people who are having a bad day... has the effect that people are routinely (almost systematically) stomped, because there's always some dozens of people having a bad day? And they all sound the same, so maybe it's a rotating vocal minority that looks like a bigger problem than it is?
Regarding death threats...
I think we have different expectations about the possibility of gov't help (I'm still a bit Pollyanna on this). Local police might or might not have the resources to take the report and coordinate with federal resources, but it's likely inter-state, so the victim could go direct to the FBI.
I'm sure I've read news stories of the senders of death threats being tracked down by law enforcement.
And, I suppose the sender just might be linked to a domestic group/network (or foreign agitators) that the FBI is already tracking.
If the researchers are under a university or NGO, are they getting support from their organization, or do they need to confront the org's administration into interfacing better with law enforcement regarding death threats?
(I'm speaking of baseline situation in recent years; I have no idea what the situation at the FBI is this week, given the various gov't disruption going on, and the keyword "climate" being targeted by some. Even if the situation is complicated at the moment, maybe lead the reporting of a crime and request for assistance with the death threat part, and then the details relevant to the investigation/analysis include that the victim is a climate researcher?)
If all else fails, an org's lawyer (and investigator they hire) might also identify doxing and egging activity (especially online) that's traceable to death threats, and be able to do more with law enforcement and/or civil courts.
It is true that basically every public figure has people screaming at them on twitter or bluesky constantly. This is probably bad in general, and I think it is worth understanding how this sort of thing can affect the opinions and behaviors of public figures. I suspect that I wouldn't respond well to waking up every day to having people yell at me online.
But this effect isn't politically aligned with the left. So it becomes frustrating when this is used exclusively to criticize the left and to excuse the right.
I'm curious if you've ever interacted with law enforcement organizations for something like this. Remember, my friend gets regular death threats. Even if somehow magically the FBI acted on the first one, will they act on the 10th?
And no, public universities do not hire private investigators via their legal office to track down death threats their faculty receive.
I've never had to deal with this firsthand.
If it's a public university, and their personnel are getting death threats regarding university work, the university had better make an effort to help -- if not for decency, then for liability. Including working with law enforcement.
One easy thing the university can do themselves (under the direction of a lawyer or administrator) is to ask IT for the Web server logs (or analytics) for accesses to the person's pages. They don't have to subpoena ISPs to see that, right before the most recent threat, there was a burst of referrers from `https://webforum.example/bobs-basement-militia?post=1232767`.
Well let me tell you very clearly: this is not how any of this works.
The FBI won't care. The local cops won't care. The university won't pull logs for network traffic, nor would the existence of this information be meaningful to anybody to take any action.
Universities can grow some of the most arrogant and unaccountable people, even worse than a bad for-profit company. But two things that can get the attention of many of the bad apples are journalists and lawyers.
The FIRE Campus Deplatforming Database claims to collect 769 successful deplatforming attempts.
If you have been banned from running an event at every single college, every single local bar, every single local theater, etc, you still have just as much ability to get your message out as the vast majority of average people.
Nobody has any obligation to provide you a platform. That is literally their first amendment right. If you want to use the government against "cancel culture", you are attempting to suppress people's first amendment rights of association.
The founding fathers had to pay people to print their pamphlets. That option has always been available and was the very context that the first amendment was built around.
The founding fathers never expected anyone else to carry their ideas. They expected ideas to be carried by their merit.
My number is per-year.
The data above is since 1998. So in the last 27 years we've seen an average of 28 successful deplatforming attempts annually. The website cites 172 attempts (not necessarily successful) in 2024.
There are thousands of colleges in the US. Surely hundreds of thousands of invited talks annually. I just cannot imagine thinking that this is a substantial social problem that should justify changing one's voting behavior.
This is a perfect example of the law of American politics that only Democrats have agency. Anything Democrats do is the responsibility of Democrats, and anything Republicans do is the responsibility of Democrats.
[dead]
It's kind of unreal that in the comments of an article about an actual (successful!) conspiracy between ultra-wealthy tech elite and extreme right activists to undermine american democracy for their own benefit, you're most concerned about liberal campus protests. You may not be as progressive as you think!
And to add to this.
Speech is not created equal. What some students say in some college campus has very little power compared to the speech of one of the richest people __in history__.
When someone famous and rich says something fucked up, the reaction to that isn’t deplatforming but rather a basic attempt at defense.
The anecdote was my writing mistake, not what I was most concerned about. (I started writing the anecdote, then decided what was important was the much larger problem, and oopsed the writing.)
As for your point, I had some of the same thoughts about the overall article as you did. But I quoted a small piece of it, to narrow in on one point I wanted to make, which might be less obvious to people who think like us about the topic.
Of course some wealthy and powerful have been undermining democracy; but what if that quote was honest: is it a valid criticism, and can we improve the situation?
As long as we're stuck with billionaires, wouldn't it be great if more of them decided it was better to promote an informed and functioning democracy?
[flagged]
> Funny how people like you never ever
> people like you always
This crosses into personal attack and you can't do that here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and edit out such swipes in the future, as the rules ask, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: this has unfortunately increasingly been a problem with your account lately:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261348 (March 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152094 (Feb 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147710 (Feb 2025)
You've made many fine contributions to HN in the past and I don't recall your account having been involved in so much ideological and political flamewar. Could you please fix this? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
IIRC, there was an invited talk at the unversity, and some student organized people to go in to the talk and disrupt it, such that the speaker literally couldn't be heard.
That's not the student exercising their free speech. It's the student denying the benefit of free speech to their fellow students and the rest of the university.
The university apparently hadn't yet educated the student on the basics of university, and there was not yet any sign that the university was going to. Reporting followed up with the student, when they promoted their personal brand, and solicited funding to continue their fight.
(You might be happy to know that, instead of my modest donation going to the university with the student who thought a first-rate university was the place to ignore the fundamentals they teach, and instead play self-promoting influencer... IIRC, that was the year the money went to a homeless trans person, who'd been through more hell than most people can imagine, and who needed a discreet laptop so that they could practice coding job skills, but without the laptop getting violently stolen from them in whatever shelter they could get into. I'm not making this up, and the contrast was striking.)
Regarding your other comments, much of the rabid left didn't seem to be acting as the savvy political operators you suggest: a whole lot of people were mindlessly flinging their poo, and playing right into the hands of some of the worst of their adversaries. Maybe it was partly a combination of crisis mode over the best of intentions (e.g., help those who need help), and anger and fatigue from same (which I certainly felt), but there also seemed to be a whole lot of not knowing any other mode of reasoning or acting. Maybe that's not their fault -- you might blame the deterioration of popular journalism, social media sites preying upon their users, and a dearth of visible role models demonstrating anything else -- but that seems to be where we are, for large slices of the vocal population. And there's been a lot of counterproductive.
I am not saying they are super savy. I am saying they were right about the right.
They were right, because they were not determined to excuse dveryone on the right up to absurdum and because they read what right actually said.
Moderate right and center consistently and always excused far right and refused to beloeve it exists even when it was completely apparent. And consistently deployed double standards where right was excused and left acts massively exaggerated.
> Funny how people like you never ever use the same power to force left or liberal speakers. It is ok to boycott or criticize those.
Do you know OP personally? Do you really think it's reasonable to assume that everyone in the universe (except for you, perhaps) is a hypocrite like this?
There's plenty of people that feel the administrative force of the university shouldn't be used to suppress either side. Let the gun club invite Luigi. Let the trans club invite the Stonewall rioters.
You're welcome to say you dislike the speaker. You don't have to attend. But you shouldn't have the authority to stop other people from inviting them to speak, or to stop other people from listening.
I don't need to know OP personally. The knee jerk "right is the way they are because of the left" gives the game away.
Left is responsible for ehat they so and never ever excused with "right made them do it". Not even when they were 100% right in the hindsight.
Right is not responsible for what they do. They are victims of circumstances even when they caused the circumstances.
I see it not as 'right is the way they are because' but 'this is what the right exploited, and I too allowed myself to go down a crappy path'. It's a pretty brave, honest, and self reflective post.
I don't think it's at all helpful to think of political groups as monolithic stereotypes like this.
So, you’re saying basic protesting and sitins shouldn’t be allowed?
Nah I’m sorry disrupting other events is a cornerstone of freedom of speech.
I think we got the far right reality of today by liberals completely ignoring working class pain and appearing to solely focus on a controversial minority. I say appearing because they didn’t seem to do anything else.
This allowed the current administration to step in by promising something different, with no intention of delivering anything but tax relief for the wealthy and unchaining corporations from those pesky regulations that prevent higher profits.
The majority of people on the left want M4A, higher minimum wage, less income inequality.
The politicians that represent them do not care. They get their seats secured as long as they toe the billionaire line.
We have no real opposition party in the US.
I hope all the partisans take a lesson from this.
When you try to force ideological conformity with censorship, you end up creating even tighter echo chambers that amplify groupthink and entrench the very ideas you are trying to combat.
The best way to defeat an idea is to publicly tolerate and dispute it.
Andreesen has had and still has a massive public platform. People disliking your ideas is not 'censorship', it's just people disliking your ideas.
That does not seem to be supported by the evidence.
Twitter becoming a fascist cess pit has not reduced the power of fascists. Hearing even a completely ridiculous idea (like "the moon is made of cheese") told in a joking manner leads people to think it is more plausible than they otherwise would: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect Deplatforming is effective at reducing radicalization: https://www-cs.stanford.edu/~diyiy/docs/jhaver-2021-deplatfo...
Note that the thing that drove Andreessen to the right was left-wing thinkers who thought censoring anti-racism was bad: he was already pro-racism and pro-censorship before he created the group chats.
The problem here seems to be the income inequality & the power of money to win elections that give the uber-rich their disproportionate power.
I wonder if this accounts for counter cultural movements in response? i.e. Deplatforming might be effective tactically but risks strengthening ideological resistance when used broadly or visibly.
GWB didn't strike me as someone who could come up with the idea of prolonged Mideast conflict on his own. The think tanks that infiltrated his mind like the movie Inception is not unlike what is being described in the article. It's tough to accept how impressionable we are regardless of age. Just in tech companies we know salesman get into the ears of leadership and sell them on all sorts of ideas.
Even though Gen Z is under constant assault by Influencers, I think they are probably sharper about spotting it similar to how GenX/Millennials were to crude marketing. They are the generation that can combat this, but at the same time they are also the generation that most likely will perpetuate it.
During the Roman republic the thing that made something like a Ceasar was a standing army. If you had a standing army you had power. Some of these powerful people have standing armies on social media and thus have power over the narrative. It's a few times removed from having men with guns, but it is the same abstraction.
> GWB didn't strike me as someone who could come up with the idea of prolonged Mideast conflict on his own.
This was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C... , the "Project 2025" of its time. They're the ones really responsible for the Iraq war, but they never got the Iran War they really wanted.