The number of tech or tech-adjacent people that have completely torched their reputation in the last few weeks is staggering. I hope they get publicly shamed.
Lol the CEO of Palantir said enthusiastically during an investor conference that it's necessary on occasion to kill his enemies, why would you think tech reputations would get torched? If anything it should be a boon when getting hired for big tech. As the government becomes more fascist and more integrated with industry, these contracts will be more and more important and enthusiastically embracing the anti-domestic-terrorist line will improve reputations even more.
HN has been right leaning? That seems an odd take. Most comments I see on here lean more progressive. Or are you talking about the billionaire tech class who are in their own demographic?
I also notice the commentariat here is progressive, but it seems the silent but pervasive downvote campaigns are dominated by, or more charitably, inadvertently aligned with those MAGA oriented views. I’ve come to think of the right wingers mainly contributing to the community with their downvotes. Perhaps they don’t feel they would fair well if they tried to engage in discussion? But it’s an interesting dynamic that a group of silent individuals only make their presence known through the conspicuousness of the censorship they leave in their wake.
> Perhaps they don’t feel they would fare[sic] well if they tried to engage in discussion?
Most of the time when I do see blatant “rightposting” it’s so misinformed and provocative to be indistinguishable from trolling / baiting, so I can’t even tell if it’s downvotes for disagree vs downvotes for suspected trolling.
The less blatant “rightposting” flies quite a bit under the radar, pretty much by definition, which is what the grandparent comment was probably referring to when they said they interpreted HN as leaning right. More like laissez-faire economics.
In light of that possibility, HN's voting system is probably too rudimentary, private and zero-cost for the modern world. Now I'm not sure if it's naivete, laziness or meant to allow opaque maligned censorship.
Most downvote bots still appear to be observing US office hours though. There's a marked difference in voting patterns between the hours that Australia wakes up and California wakes up versus the rest of the day.
HN like a lot of SV / VC culture was more libertarian leaning than right leaning. Low taxes, minimal oversight, etc. - true largely of workers and capital alike.
The open embrace of the fascist / nativist right in SV has been more recent, and it has empowered this second Trump administration. The calculation is presumably that they can curry favor and consolidate power.
Industrialists have always benefited from aligning with rightwing authoritarian governments. SV has not shown as a whole to be immune to this. The parallels with historical occurrences is blindingly obvious, down to the speech patterns.
> My suspicion is that, here on HN, the number has dwindled considerably
What makes you think that? The number of articles that get flagged and the pattern of the flagging and down voting would suggest that not to be true even if the actual comments might have slowed
This is anecdotal, but two things have impressed me:
1) It is no longer the case when I criticize something Trump has said or done, that I instantly get downvoted into oblivion or flagged.
2) Until recently, when someone posted some moderate comment, someone else often replied with a variant of "HN is a liberal echo chamber" I haven't noticed those replies for a while.
Is it particularly wild? There are many possible interpretations of your statement. Do you expect the people on this site to be particularly different from the voters who almost put Trump into office 2016 and actually voted him into office 2024? Or did you mean to express shock that anyone at all would vote for Trump compared to voting for someone like Biden?
I don't even know what a realistic plan to fix this looks like. How do you cult de-program 40% of the population of the most powerful country on the planet?
Nuremberg-style trials for every single person working under this administration is obviously the base minimum to start to get a handle on this. Anyone who is not pushing for that is not being serious about tackling America's problems. Then what? Extreme anti-trust enforcement and implement wealth caps to prevent the harm from recurring and hope most of the population eventually comes back to planet Earth?
Oh, that's easy. You see people vote like this if they don't advance economically. So what you need is to create a decade or so of economic advancement for >50% of the US.
If that doesn't happen, odds are that even if a democrat president gets elected, they won't be much better. This is still the fallout of the GFC, of the decision to bail out the banks back then.
I know that sounds incredible, and I would have bitten off the head of anyone claiming this when I was 20 ... but it's how the world works.
As a foreigner, I'm super interested but somewhat lacking in knowledge on this subject. Could you expand on this being the repercussions of the bailout? I felt scammed when I read about it and my country wasn't even very heavily affected by the crisis (I was a wee lad back then though).
There is a difference between not liking someone for substantive and non-substantive reasons. I have military training that is adjacent to policing because that was one of the objectives of the theater I was in.
Informed by that training I would never:
- shoot someone when they are being detained
- shoot someone simply because they have a gun
- stand next to a vehicle so as to postulate the vehicle as a weapon
When I don't like Kristi Noem it isn't because she's Kristi Noem, because she's a woman, or because she shot a puppy she didn't like. It's because her actions and policy that she defends and writes don't agree with the ethics of the training I received.
You can do this thought exercise across this administration and arrive at the same conclusions of most of the key-holding individuals.
That's not at all what the person you responded to said. I'm not sure if you're intentionally misrepresenting their statement or if you're just reading too quickly or are under-caffeinated or whatever.
