Edit 2: I'm talking about page views, plus ajax requests like collapsing subthreads. If by 'visits' you mean user sessions, that number would obviously be lower.
The block doesn't seem to be absolute, as some of GreatFire's servers still occasionally get through. Based on previous experience, I guess it's location-dependent, but can't say for sure.
I'm sure CCP has more than enough people in their employ to hasbara the shit out of any public forum.
They do it in colleges all across the country! At least they can't get violent on HN.
edit: Corporations also police this site pretty hard. Since this is a ycombinator side-project, the resources to fight against that are probably somewhat limited.
Jesus Christ... I dont even know what the solution to this is... Its frightening. I come from an ex-communist country and now live in the US. Cant we ever get away from the mess??
Reading comments of random topics (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190265) most comments seem to not be siding with China. The HN community certainly isn't pro-CCP, but there are probably just random weibo drones browsing and downvoting anything they disagree with.
I am getting spam downvoting on like a lot of antiCCP comments. Shouldnt HN deploy that feature that some platforms have where you cant mass-downvote one users comments?
I think they already do have measures to prevent mass downvoting, flagging, vote rings etc. Dang would know more.
Downvotes might be because your trope one liner put downs aren't adding much. "I thought the western world was immune to communism", "This place is dear to me and now theyre destroying it", what because we're exposed to views different to ours? Which "they"? Who is to say whatever downvotes you've caught aren't entirely from Western pro-capitalists?
As someone not of Asian heritage who has been active in Hong Kong related threads, has friends there, and supports the demonstrators, I can say to my eyes, it is _not_ predominated by pro CCP people. I've certainly had a discussion or two, disagreements, a different view of how history played out - they get their spin from media, we get ours. There's a few people with a distinct perspective. It's always useful to hear the opposing view, or evidence you're mistaken, even if you never reach agreement.
We've looked into this at length on many occasions. I've seen no evidence that Chinese agents are manipulating HN. Rather, what's happening is that HN is a large community whose members come from many different backgrounds. Among those are quite a few users of Chinese descent who either grew up in Western countries or went there for school or work; and also many Westerners who have gone to China to work or for other reasons. As you might expect, these users have a perspective on China and Chinese-Western relations that is quite different from the majority population on HN which, though highly international, is well over 90% Western and whose views naturally reflect the majority views in their countries. This is what happens when people come from different backgrounds and have different experiences—they end up with different perspectives on things. I know that sounds like a platitude, but it's a platitude with consequences.
Many stories relating to the current upheaval in Chinese-Western relations have appeared on Hacker News in the last year, including several intense threads within the last few days. The majority perspective here reflects the Western demographics of the community, but the smaller group I've just mentioned, the users with different backgrounds and experiences in relation to China, is also participating in these threads. When they do, a grinding collision of icebergs occurs, as differing perspectives bump up against each other.
When people run into a view that is a little different from their own—say one standard deviation away or less—they tend to respond conversationally. Unfortunately, when they run into a view that is a lot different from their own, the standard reaction is to become hostile. Instead of curiosity and openness, people become suspicious and feel that the other person can't be speaking in good faith. They don't think "wow, that's a really different point of view". They think "astroturfer", "shill", "spy", "bot", "troll", and "communist agent". That's what we're seeing on HN these days.
Is it ok for commenters to hurl these accusations against other commenters they disagree with? No it is not. Doing so gratuitously,
as a way to expunge discomfort or irritation at what someone else said, is poisonous to HN in many ways: it damages community, banishes tolerance, is uncurious and off topic. It also has a boy-who-cried-wolf or field-of-boliauns effect of making real abuse harder to track down.
The way to mitigate this is to have a simple rule of looking for evidence when concerns about abuse come up. If people have concerns about abuse, the site guidelines ask them to email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look for such evidence. In the absence of evidence, insinuations about astroturfing, etc., are off topic, for the reasons I described.
This problem has a lot of complex dynamics that are not what they seem. For example, because the threads about China and Chinese-Western relations have become so intense and flamewar-prone, the users with minority perspectives who I described are often prompted to create accounts and jump into the threads when they have a strong reaction against something that was posted. Making a new account when you're hot under the collar isn't a great way to participate on HN, but it's not in bad faith either—quite the contrary. However, when such green accounts show up in these threa...
We have such a feature. I think your comments on this topic have likely been downvoted because they have largely been unsubstantive. The site guidelines say: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive", and this is the most divisive topic on HN at the moment.
> State actors do an OK job of keeping their prints off of things
No doubt they do. What are our options? We can fantasize about this and project our fantasies onto other users—or we can look for some sort of evidence, any evidence, before making claims. If you want to believe in diabolical state actors manipulating the community and leaving no trace whatsoever, how could that ever be falsified? The only thing you have to go by in that case are your own assumptions and preconceptions.
On HN, we choose the other fork of that branch and look for evidence. I'm not saying the bar is high, but there needs to be something. In the absence of any evidence at all, the HN guidelines ask users not to post insinuations about astroturfing, foreign spies, etc. Someone else holding an opposing view does not count as evidence. There is an epidemic of internet madness about this right now, and it's not in the values of this site to succumb. Perhaps everywhere else wants to be James Jesus Angleton in the wilderness of mirrors, but HN, barring catastrophic failure, is not going to go there.
---
As for silent downvotes, I realize they sting and are annoying, but that's the way HN works. Users aren't required to explain why they downvote. If we had such a requirement, the threads would fill up with 10x the petty bickering about downvotes, and we have more than enough of that already. The thing to do with downvotes is to examine what you wrote to see what might have been objectionable about it. If you notice something, note the correction for next time. If you notice nothing, muse to yourself about the fickleness of homo internetus and move on. It's not worth posting about, which is why the HN guidelines ask you not to.
"the only thing you have to go by in that case are your own assumptions and preconceptions"
dang, you are not the only dude here who went to college.
In my own case, all I can say is that I have "seen some shit", and I would not feel totally comfortable or assured that this was all purely the result of personal, unpaid, opinions.
Educational credentials weren't on my mind. The point is this: if you have evidence, let's hear about it. If you don't, then please follow the site guidelines and refrain from making insinuations about astroturfers, shills, or spies. Someone else having an opposing view does not count as evidence.
I am also very annoyed by silent downvotes but can tell you that they definitely go both ways. People are too quick in blaming "paid trolls" or "state actors" when it's most likely good old 'keyboard warriors' from both sides.
Now its even flagged. I simply asked a question that would probably be on the mind of a lot of users on here that value their privacy, liberty and human rights.
Users correctly flagged it because it's off topic, inflammatory, and inaccurate. I'm working on a slower, more detailed reply to your question at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21200971. I'll probably finish that in the next hour.
I've had a quick look at your comments, including in this thread, and I think this is because you post inflammatory, unsubstantive comments.
Try to post substantive comments on what you disagree with about China and the CCP, show that you know a minimum the issues at hand, rather than "have we forgotten what liberty is" or "how to defeat the communists"...
Hey thanks for your reply. Why dont you post from your main account? It seems like youre hiding your views from the public?
Also, I think theres substantive evidence everywhere online except in the great firewall of china that can be used to conclude that dictatorship and communism is bad. Am I really debating this right now?
The problem with your comments is not that there's no evidence to support your viewpoint, but that you're not telling anyone anything new. You're just telling everyone how angry you are. This site is for intellectual curiosity first and foremost, if it turns into an ideological battleground then only because we're not good at strictly following rules.
I'm not perfect either, but my recent comment history may give you an idea of what I mean by "telling others something new."
34 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 75.6 ms ] threadhttps://www.similarweb.com/website/news.ycombinator.com#over...
Edit: 147M in September.
Edit 2: I'm talking about page views, plus ajax requests like collapsing subthreads. If by 'visits' you mean user sessions, that number would obviously be lower.
>Traffic by countries
>United States 36.66%
>China 13.19%
According to that data, it started in August, which is also when people started to notice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20599249
(Edit: just noticed you were in that thread. I think it was the first; at least I can't find any others with this search: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... )
The block doesn't seem to be absolute, as some of GreatFire's servers still occasionally get through. Based on previous experience, I guess it's location-dependent, but can't say for sure.
They do it in colleges all across the country! At least they can't get violent on HN.
edit: Corporations also police this site pretty hard. Since this is a ycombinator side-project, the resources to fight against that are probably somewhat limited.
From what I hear, this problem is even worse in Australia.
Downvotes might be because your trope one liner put downs aren't adding much. "I thought the western world was immune to communism", "This place is dear to me and now theyre destroying it", what because we're exposed to views different to ours? Which "they"? Who is to say whatever downvotes you've caught aren't entirely from Western pro-capitalists?
As someone not of Asian heritage who has been active in Hong Kong related threads, has friends there, and supports the demonstrators, I can say to my eyes, it is _not_ predominated by pro CCP people. I've certainly had a discussion or two, disagreements, a different view of how history played out - they get their spin from media, we get ours. There's a few people with a distinct perspective. It's always useful to hear the opposing view, or evidence you're mistaken, even if you never reach agreement.
Many stories relating to the current upheaval in Chinese-Western relations have appeared on Hacker News in the last year, including several intense threads within the last few days. The majority perspective here reflects the Western demographics of the community, but the smaller group I've just mentioned, the users with different backgrounds and experiences in relation to China, is also participating in these threads. When they do, a grinding collision of icebergs occurs, as differing perspectives bump up against each other.
When people run into a view that is a little different from their own—say one standard deviation away or less—they tend to respond conversationally. Unfortunately, when they run into a view that is a lot different from their own, the standard reaction is to become hostile. Instead of curiosity and openness, people become suspicious and feel that the other person can't be speaking in good faith. They don't think "wow, that's a really different point of view". They think "astroturfer", "shill", "spy", "bot", "troll", and "communist agent". That's what we're seeing on HN these days.
Is it ok for commenters to hurl these accusations against other commenters they disagree with? No it is not. Doing so gratuitously, as a way to expunge discomfort or irritation at what someone else said, is poisonous to HN in many ways: it damages community, banishes tolerance, is uncurious and off topic. It also has a boy-who-cried-wolf or field-of-boliauns effect of making real abuse harder to track down.
Worse, when people single out others as targets of these accusations, we end up with ugly mob behavior, with individuals being falsely accused and even being run out of town (examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195898 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403358). None of us in our right mind wants that here.
The way to mitigate this is to have a simple rule of looking for evidence when concerns about abuse come up. If people have concerns about abuse, the site guidelines ask them to email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look for such evidence. In the absence of evidence, insinuations about astroturfing, etc., are off topic, for the reasons I described.
This problem has a lot of complex dynamics that are not what they seem. For example, because the threads about China and Chinese-Western relations have become so intense and flamewar-prone, the users with minority perspectives who I described are often prompted to create accounts and jump into the threads when they have a strong reaction against something that was posted. Making a new account when you're hot under the collar isn't a great way to participate on HN, but it's not in bad faith either—quite the contrary. However, when such green accounts show up in these threa...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What bugs me are silent downvotes. If someone disagrees, great! Tell me why.
Being quietly zapped into invisibility just feels like cowardly thought-policing.
No doubt they do. What are our options? We can fantasize about this and project our fantasies onto other users—or we can look for some sort of evidence, any evidence, before making claims. If you want to believe in diabolical state actors manipulating the community and leaving no trace whatsoever, how could that ever be falsified? The only thing you have to go by in that case are your own assumptions and preconceptions.
On HN, we choose the other fork of that branch and look for evidence. I'm not saying the bar is high, but there needs to be something. In the absence of any evidence at all, the HN guidelines ask users not to post insinuations about astroturfing, foreign spies, etc. Someone else holding an opposing view does not count as evidence. There is an epidemic of internet madness about this right now, and it's not in the values of this site to succumb. Perhaps everywhere else wants to be James Jesus Angleton in the wilderness of mirrors, but HN, barring catastrophic failure, is not going to go there.
---
As for silent downvotes, I realize they sting and are annoying, but that's the way HN works. Users aren't required to explain why they downvote. If we had such a requirement, the threads would fill up with 10x the petty bickering about downvotes, and we have more than enough of that already. The thing to do with downvotes is to examine what you wrote to see what might have been objectionable about it. If you notice something, note the correction for next time. If you notice nothing, muse to yourself about the fickleness of homo internetus and move on. It's not worth posting about, which is why the HN guidelines ask you not to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang, you are not the only dude here who went to college.
In my own case, all I can say is that I have "seen some shit", and I would not feel totally comfortable or assured that this was all purely the result of personal, unpaid, opinions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I just answered a different comment with why I don't think your claim is anything near true.
Try to post substantive comments on what you disagree with about China and the CCP, show that you know a minimum the issues at hand, rather than "have we forgotten what liberty is" or "how to defeat the communists"...
Also, I think theres substantive evidence everywhere online except in the great firewall of china that can be used to conclude that dictatorship and communism is bad. Am I really debating this right now?
I'm not perfect either, but my recent comment history may give you an idea of what I mean by "telling others something new."