Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    355 points Aloisius | 15 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source | bottom
    Show context
    throwaway2087[dead post] ◴[] No.44390728[source]
    [flagged]
    1. NaOH ◴[] No.44390879[source]
    As a new account, it'd probably be best to familiarize yourself with the site guidelines. For example,

    >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

    >Omit internet tropes.

    >Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

    https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

    replies(4): >>44390920 #>>44390934 #>>44391030 #>>44391149 #
    2. ◴[] No.44390920[source]
    3. throwaway5752 ◴[] No.44390934[source]
    While I think this is borderline in terms of following guidelines, it is much more concerning that the comment accurately quoted the source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/trump-effect-hig...

    nickff: I agree it was borderline. My sentiment was closer to suggesting we look past tone to how shocking the content is. The human brain tries to normalize things, but a statement like this would have been unprecedented before 2016. People would have resigned or been fired, it would have been a scandal.

    replies(1): >>44390961 #
    4. nickff ◴[] No.44390961[source]
    I think the comment you replied to was criticizing the "/rofl". These shallow reaction/dismissal comments really are turning this site into the hell-hole that Reddit already is.
    replies(1): >>44391043 #
    5. micromacrofoot ◴[] No.44391030[source]
    Are we considering propaganda work now?
    replies(1): >>44391543 #
    6. affinepplan ◴[] No.44391043{3}[source]
    Leavitt's statement doesn't deserve further scrutiny beyond shallow dismissal.
    replies(2): >>44391119 #>>44391174 #
    7. nickff ◴[] No.44391119{4}[source]
    The top-level comment added nothing to the conversation that this site is supposed to be about. We are supposed to assume that commenters read thee article, and if they did, a LOL, ROFL, or WTF doesn't move the conversation forward.
    replies(2): >>44391781 #>>44392123 #
    8. IncreasePosts ◴[] No.44391149[source]
    Realistically, it's not a new user, since they're making a throwaway. It's someone on the site that just didn't want this post associated with their main account.
    9. NaOH ◴[] No.44391174{4}[source]
    >The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.

    https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

    10. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[] No.44391543[source]
    > especially

    The problem with shallow dismissals in general is that it is a low bar for a comment. The problem with shallow dismissals in the context of someone else's work is that it's invalidating something which should be celebrated. They're both problems for different reasons. A comment explaining why one thinks the quote is ridiculous is more substantive than simply laughing at it.

    replies(1): >>44392166 #
    11. tzs ◴[] No.44391781{5}[source]
    The quote in the top-level comment from the White House is not in the article [1], so I'm having trouble understanding your point.

    [1] right now. It is possible it was in an earlier version of the article.

    12. op00to ◴[] No.44392123{5}[source]
    This whole thread adds nothing to the conversation.

    Downvote as you choose and move on. Maybe I ought to take my own advice.

    13. mindslight ◴[] No.44392166{3}[source]
    > A comment explaining why one thinks the quote is ridiculous is more substantive than simply laughing at it.

    The problem is if you do the work of analyzing the overt liars' statements, people will then pick on that for being too inflammatory. Never mind the downvotes from the true believers that are still gulping down the Kool-aid.

    replies(1): >>44396493 #
    14. micromacrofoot ◴[] No.44396493{4}[source]
    the paradox of tolerance, basically

    if you treat all this information as equally deserving of respect, then you spend all your time with a flood of intentional nonsense

    replies(1): >>44398583 #
    15. mindslight ◴[] No.44398583{5}[source]
    I think it's a different dynamic, but leads to many of the same conclusions. Crucially, needing to reintroduce longer running identities/nyms/authorities of speakers such that they can build up trust rather than discussion being a structureless deluge.

    I remember back in the age of dinosaurs, when HN made it a point of turning usernames lighter grey so comments would stand on their own. It made sense at the time for all of us coming up on the early Internet where humans were scarce and if someone was speaking you could assume not just that they were doing so in good faith (modulo mental illness), but that they were somewhere between higher intelligence and a bona fide leader in their field. This is laughably naive today, even more so with the rise of LLM slop.

    Of course the major immediate problem here is the propagandists have set up shop in one of the key authorities of our society, and are still fueled by a crowd that still thinks they're supporting some kind of "independent thinking" revolution rather than totalitarian Party-allegiance-first regime akin to the Soviet Union, to a larger degree than "the woke" ever was. Navarro's bizzarro-universe economics and "anti-woke" applied to research/academics are basically our modern Lysenkoism. Same shit, different time period.