←back to thread

2525 points hownottowrite | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.53s | source
Show context
IanSanders ◴[] No.21191494[source]
I agree 100% that we should boycott and sanction, however doubt there will be enough people who will, and enough people who care. And I don't blame most for not caring, there are more things to worry about than we have time available. Maybe 1% of hearthstone players will see your comment. Similarly, there are other entities which need to be sanctioned, which you and me won't find out about as it's outside of our areas of interest.

Which makes me believe we need some kind of trusted "morality authority", which would process information similar to this and make informed decisions who to boycott, how and when. Less informed would be able to make an impact without having to do research (which not everyone would do equally well)

Obviously this authority must operate with complete transparency, so that we could verify its decision process when required.

Any hostile actions against it must be treated as a crime against humanity?

Somehow it must be immune from corruption. Perhaps some mechanism to revoke user trust in case of wrongdoings.

replies(12): >>21191567 #>>21191638 #>>21191670 #>>21191718 #>>21191797 #>>21191919 #>>21191981 #>>21192034 #>>21192140 #>>21192353 #>>21192441 #>>21192468 #
bovermyer ◴[] No.21191718[source]
This sounds way too close to the Ministry of Love from 1984.
replies(1): >>21192024 #
1. simias ◴[] No.21192024[source]
We need an equivalent to Godwin's law for making parallels to Orwell's 1984. It's thrown around so much in internet debates these days that it loses all meaning IMO.

Besides it doesn't even really work here, the Ministry of Love is about torture and spreading fear throughout the population. If anything what the parent proposes would be closer to the Ministry of Truth but even that is a stretch. I think the soviet Goskomizdat might be a better comparison.

replies(1): >>21197707 #
2. bovermyer ◴[] No.21197707[source]
I chose an analogy that I felt would be reasonably familiar to most people and convey the reaction I wanted.

Is it the most appropriate of all possible analogies? No.

Is it contextually close enough? I thought so. A few people seem to agree.

If your contribution to the discussion is to critique the efficacy of my analogy, then I feel like you've missed the point a bit.