←back to thread

1116 points whatok | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
groundlogic ◴[] No.20740667[source]
I don't think HN is immune to these kinds of CCP ops.
replies(3): >>20740740 #>>20740746 #>>20741510 #
sdinsn ◴[] No.20741510[source]
The mods here state that HN is immune. Anyone that calls out potential hostile information operations is threatened by the mods.
replies(1): >>20741528 #
1. dang ◴[] No.20741528[source]
We've never said that. All we say (and have said for years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9115965) is (a) that there needs to be evidence, and (b) that someone holding an opposing view is not evidence (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...).

The trouble is that most "calling out" that people do about this is easily seen to be bogus, even from just the public records of the commenters—unless you believe that Chinese (or, before that, Russian) moles were posting, say, GitHub projects in 2013 so they could get away with propaganda 6 years later. A lot of what we do as moderators is simply to sift carefully through the publicly available information. It's an indication of how lazy these accusations are that the users making them mostly don't bother to do that.

It's a cheap shot to fire off "you must be a shill-spy-astroturfer-bot-troll" in an internet argument. It degrades discussion, and the overwhelming majority of the time, there's no information in it beyond "I don't like what you say". The users who do this need to learn how unreliable this impulse to denounce others is, and restrain themselves from letting those neurons fire. Not only does it degrade the community in general, it often targets individuals in ugly and distressing ways, which none of us wants to see here. For an example, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403358.

What Twitter and Facebook are writing about in today's posts is something completely different. The fact that such manipulations exist does not give HN users license to cheaply smear each other. Both are wrong.