During the week when more people are working, more tech focused news/projects tend to be shared and discussed.

Give it another week and then decide if it’s all groupthink.

I still find it alarming that so many people perceive these actions as sincere attempts at harm-reduction. Regardless, it is a pleasant to see both sides being represented in the discussion.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711525

Which is in itself the Dunning-Kruger effect. A tiny minority of people actually have expert level understanding and knowledge. The vast majority of people who think they have expert level understanding just fail to recognise how large their field actually is.

You can be considered a subject-matter expert for recruitment and employment purposes, and it still never be close to the truth. For most practical business purposes it will be true, but it still wont be the reality.

I didn't recognise that distinction until after I had 12 years experience in my field, and met someone who absolutely blew my mind with their level of knowledge and understanding (and declared themselves to be a subject-matter noob).

For all intents and purposes, he's still an expert to everyone else.

I think the line between expert and imposter syndrome is closer and more context based than people realise.

The only option seems to be copious and wide reading of data yourself, and then applying that to your own life, while ensuring you provide a veneer that passes muster to those physically around you, unwilling to do the same, and at odds with your personal conclusion.

Easier said than done, when a large portion of your time is spent taking care of mundane work/family matters.

This breakage in trust of the 'common good' by 'experts' in their field - leaders, law enforcement, health, merchants, ensures that the path of least resistance is the "blind belief" in local leadership and their chosen 'expert' supporters.

From all the networks I participated in, HN is by far most quality-oriented and while the balance of political opinion is different from US average, there is neither mob rule nor cancel culture rampant.

And that’s from someone who got fed up, left for a few years, then returned.

Edit: just don’t tell any jokes. Take that to Reddit :D

In theory, Apple + Google + Microsoft can ban the website at the OS level, so nobody can really access those messages. Technically, they can do this to Parler now.

You can build your own website, but you can't build your own internet. You can't build your own banking system.

It's more about the web than the internet really. The web can be unfree quite easily. Unless we go full China and implement a Great Firewall other protocols can always exist on the net.

https://bisq.network/

Suppored payment methods:

    Advanced Cash
    AliPay
    Cash Deposit
    Chase QuickPay
    Face to face (in-person)
    Faster Payments
    HalCash
    Interac e-Transfer
    Japan Zengin Furikomi
    MoneyBeam (N26)
    MoneyGram
    National bank transfer
    Perfect Money
    Popmoney
    PromptPay
    Revolut
    SEPA
    SEPA Instant
    Swish
    Transfer with same bank
    Transfer with specific banks
    Uphold
    US Postal Money Order
    WeChat Pay
    Western Union
    Zelle

It's so funny. Whenever people say you can't do X with crypto, there is always something they don't know about that proves them wrong.

I'm trying not to fall into a "Survivorship bias" here but I made 10s if not 100s of trades on LocalBitcoin years ago without issue. I wasn't meeting at people's houses or in some dark alley, I was in the Kroger (grocery store) parking lot or even inside Kroger or the Mall. I don't disagree with your point that fiat->crypto is not as easy as some people pretend it is but I just wanted to push back a little bit on the second part of your statement.

A major issue seems to be literal lies and disinformation spreading over social media which makes that divide appear to be much greater than it actually is. If these blatant lies can be prevented then the left and right will have a much easier time coming to political compromises when running the country. Having shared primary ballots would also help a lot to prevent the most radical wings of each party from dominating, because then each party’s candidate would have to appeal to all voters rather than their own.

Shared primary ballots is a good start, but it seems like the most meaningful change to our political system would be implementing a system of ranked voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting). Among other things, that would help break the two-party nightmare cased by first-past-the-post voting.

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/elections/approval_voting_lwv...

St. Louis in November passed approval voting. ( https://electionscience.org/press-releases/diverse-coalition... )

I think the lies and conspiracies are just a manifestation or side effect of the social and political divide. Its like imagining someone you already hate. "They're plotting against me", "they're going to get me", "they probably spilled that milk on purpose to piss me off", etc. And I think there is some substance to the hate, not to the conspiracy, but I see that our society has gotten to this point for real reasons and disagreements that can't be compromised on

edit: typos

Does anyone actually trust big tech at this stage? I thought it was just a case of how much you distrust them.

You say you fear they’ll do so, but if they’re being forced out of society — what choice do they have but to build their own?

They've been creating smaller more exclusive communities for years. They have their own youtube news and fan/media channels, they have their own internet personalities and figureheads even among the mainstream (like dr disrespect, who seemed to be popular with right-leaning gamers I know), they tend to congregate in various indie games (especially war and FPS games), they have their own forums and online spaces (e.g. private discords; thedonald reddit clone, alternate subreddits; parler; 4chan, which is older than any of this but decidedly more right wing nowadays than I remember 10 years ago), and so forth. The problem is that they feel these spaces and communities are under attack. Parler, while I don't disagree with the right of FAANG companies to decouple from parler, is just the latest space that's "under attack".

This isn't unique to Parler, I've seen the right complain about this in gaming, movies and comics (like Star Wars), tabletop games, etc. for years and I know people who were otherwise apolitical but shifted to the right because they felt their hobbies and fanbases were being (unfairly) criticized and changed by outsiders specifically from the left-wing who don't appreciate the original characteristics. And I even agree to some degree that it's hard to have your own space without being attacked. For example, recently I am somewhat aware that Hololive idols, basically asian/japanese game and lifestyle streamers using 3D avatars, have been under (what I think is) undue scrutiny from some feminists for being sexist, pandering to pedophiles, and fueling misogyny. I've seen similar attacks on anime and on some games. Personally I think there's more of a racial element, given western phobia towards asians, in a lot of these attacks and criticisms because extra criticism seem to be targeted at japanese or asian media, but in any case, people on the right think it's mostly political and the political divide has not only worsened it's caused people to take sides and move from a localized feuds (fighting over media like anime and Star Wars) to a broader battle (politics, values, belief systems). And as far as I've observed, this tracks with their attempts and successes at creating increasingly broader alternative platforms. From having their own spaces within larger communities to creating alternative platforms, like parler, or hijacking sites like 4chan, and actually making them viable, unlike earlier attempts (like voat). As of January 6 I think we've come to the point where enough people have aligned politically on the right that they're going to want their own real world society, and not just an online one. Shutting down parler is just going to accelerate the sentiment imo, because as far as I've seen people kind of quantize their world views when (they believe) they're under attack, and group up. They don't become more understanding and broader minded, they become more tribal.

So if the right wants their own society just let them have it before internet fights become real ones. Personally I think it's still a small amount of people, my experiences are just anecdotal based on what I've seen in communities I was part of and people I know, but I think the sentiment is growing rapidly and trying to shut things down isn't working, at best it's a roadblock that pushes problems down the road, at worst it makes people go underground and become more competent at hiding in plain sight.

edit: My fear in particular is that they'll resort to wide scale political, maybe racial, violence. Not that they want right-wing spaces. I'm asian, a lot of us already kind of self-segregate and I don't see any issue with it to be frank. I know integration is important in the US but I don't see a problem with people wanting their own safe space where they're left alone, although it's sad it's come to the point where people attack the capitol.

Social media platforms already long ago decided not to allow groups such as ISIS to propagandize and organize online. Why would they allow any other terrorist groups? Those calling for the usurpation of democracy through insurrection and violence are equivalent.

>So if the right wants their own society just let them have it before internet fights become real ones.

We've already seen many instances of right-wing terroristic violence in the form of bombings (attempted and successful), mass shootings, etc.; many of these have been organized online in extreme right-wing spaces. It's an easy case to be made that allowing such spaces to proliferate will lead to more violence.

But to equate all right-wing speech with terrorism seems to be succumbing to a self-fulfilling prophecy while at the same time justifying the very actions you're opposing.

If we truly want inclusive political discourse, we need to acknowledge the validity of traditional conservative viewpoints while drawing a clear distinction between those viewpoints and reactionary terroristic violence. With this understanding in mind, newspapers such as the NYTimes have long featured conservative columnists with critical viewpoints. Perhaps such mainstream publications should try harder to do this.

There is plenty of room for intelligent discourse, but hateful attacks (verbal and otherwise), simply have no place in a healthy society.

But to equate all right-wing speech with terrorism seems to be succumbing to a self-fulfilling prophecy while at the same time justifying the very actions you're opposing.

I'm not equating it to terrorism, I'm saying that they have indicated they want separate systems and, really, a separate society. If you take right-wing talking points at face value, what we have now is a shaky middle ground, a society wherein the powers that be both reject them and also employ regulations that make it difficult for newcomers to make their own banks, lay internet cables, etc. which is why you see right wing memes about "make your own google, make your own banks, etc". And these aren't new talking points, one of Trump's promises going into his presidency was to get rid of as many regulations as he could in general: financial and economic, environmental, governance, etc. and democrats/the left are usually blamed for loving regulations. So if that's the case, split the country and let them do what they want with their government, from scratch. It's not like I'm saying we should go around and take all their belongings and march them down to Florida or something and leave them like cavemen. I make it sound trivial because I'm not an expert or anything, but for the purposes of this discussion I think it's a better alternative to civil conflict and I don't see how we're going to fix the divide.

If we truly want inclusive political discourse, we need to acknowledge the validity of traditional conservative viewpoints while drawing a clear distinction between those viewpoints and reactionary terroristic violence. With this understanding in mind, newspapers such as the NYTimes have long featured conservative columnists with critical viewpoints. Perhaps such mainstream publications should try harder to do this.

I'm not really disagreeing but I think we're past the point where publications matter. Social media has created this new world where you're able to discover people you didn't even know existed. In the past you might know your neighbors and accordingly, you'd move to a neighborhood that suited your tastes. For example, that's basically what white flight was (I'm trying to be brief, not insensitive), it's real, that's how people act. And they'd remain in their local bubble and only have a vague idea of the rest of the world, neatly summarized by the news. People would get mad at ideas and vague demographics, and occasionally figureheads like politicians and public businessmen.

Now, on "public" social media like twitter, you can find virtually anyone who has a certain belief or is a certain way and just yell at them for existing or thinking a certain way. You and your friends can pick them out for doing something and mob them on social media, dox them and get them fired, and attack every social aspect of their life. This isn't even unique to politics per se, this happened to a woman who made a terrible joke about AIDS and Africa, among many other people for non-political reasons like being accused of crimes or plagiarizing art. And this is in ADDITION to getting mad at ideas and demographics and figureheads. So the divide that used to be vague has been refined to an individual level, and to make things worse people categorize each other and place them into enemy tribes based on beliefs and people they follow on social media. You follow Biden on twitter? You're a "demoncrat" and you're the enemy. If you follow Trump you're a "nazi" and you're the enemy. You liked some youtuber personality that's this way or another and you're automatically a SJW or a white supremacist, etc. It's borderline impossible to escape and you don't even have to be a part of social media anymore, it's become somewhat normalized to pick individuals out for their wrong doings and have an online mob use any means of communication they can, not just the internet, to attack you. You're unfortunately suspected of being the Boston Bomber because some guy saw bad photos and created a psychotic conspiracy that put you in the middle? A literal international mob from around the world is coming to harass your family and make them miserable even though you'd been dead before the event occurred. Now, mobs certainly happened in the past at smaller, local levels, and they did target individuals often to even worse effect (e.g. lynching), but the digital space has made discovery of individuals easier than ever before and made it borderline impossible to hide your presence.

edit: formatting

It’s important to look at the context around those bans.

The most recent ban from the companies you’ve listed was Visa banning PornHub. They did so because of the amount of underage and non-consentual content on the website.

Yes, companies can ban you in theory, but everything indicates that they do so only in extreme circumstances, like hosting child porn or terrorist content (which is essentially what Parler is being banned for).

This is very much untrue. Most of the conservatives (including the non-conservative called Donald Trump) banned from the main platforms are further from terrorist content than AOC is.

Perhaps this is all inevitable with the nature of the internet, but I have lost a bit of my faith in our institutions to maintain an environment that highlights our common humanity, even when we disagree.