There has been a number of HN submissions about decentralization and Internet freedom today, probably as a reaction to the deplatforming of Parler: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993

Probably not a coincidence that this gets posted with no context the day that Parler gets kicked off AWS.

I presume it's someone trying to offer Cabal as a Parler alternative.

They in no way support free speech.

I doubt that https://github.com/cabal-club/commons/blob/master/values.md#...

But if architected for openness without central censorship chokepoints, such affinity declarations can’t alone prevent participation. Mastodon’s tech is used by Gab, for example.

At best this can:

* influence the observable qualities of the closely-collaborating dev community – who’ll have to outwardly project these values.

* lead to the prioritization of decentralized user-driven moderation features, which still allow the disfavored groups to communicate with other willing audiences, with minimized impact on unwilling audiences.

> Saving grace is most are probably too stupid to read hacker news.

I wouldn’t make this assumption. I have seen plenty of modern conservative opinion around here, and some of it really does align with ideas of white male supremacy and support for fascist authoritarian leadership. It’s easier to find on “new” on posts that aren’t strictly technology related. They are definitely here.

Of course, people are entitled to their opinions. 99.9% of normal liberal or conservative Americans aren’t going to get violent or take part in an insurrection. Nothing wrong with a having and expressing opinions.

But to me, the concern here isn’t even what happened a few days ago at the Capitol. My concern is the mass radicalization of the right wing of politics, and therefore people, in America. This radicalization is mainstream because the media outlets pushing the ideas are themselves mainstream, more mainstream than you think.

E.g. my family members, who are not deep down anything truly radical like the Q rabbit hole, but still believe it’s okay for Trump to be “joking” about 12 more years, running contrary to elementary school civics lessons that were supposed to be universal common ground. They got these ideas from America’s number one cable news channel, not some obscure Internet forum.

Don't be so sure. Trump-Qanon supporters seem to be pretty common around here. They were very active in the "Trump banned from twitter" post.

Doesn't surprise me as (Trump|QAnon)'ism seems to be very inviting to the tech bro culture.

Does "Free speech applies to Qanaon supporters as much as it does to me and thee." make me a Qanon supporter?

If QAnon is truly "pretty common" on HN, then I'm sure you could easily point out, say, 3-4 QAnon posts on here from the past week.

That should be easy if QAnon is common on HN, right?

I specifically said (Trump|QAnon). It's pretty hard to tell the average trump supporter apart from the average QAnon supporter.

And you could look at my comments and those who commented in return to find your 3-4 posters. That's pretty easy, right?

QAnon, as malignant as it is, is a relatively small movement even among Trump supporters - probably around 1/4 of his followers.

Don't believe me? Go read thedonald.win. After you recover from the shock of realizing that many of them are planning/hoping for another assault on democracy on the 17th, you'll see that the attitude toward QAnon is not one of approval .

And I've never seen a QAnon-related or -influenced post on HN. Clearly, there are Trump supporters, although they're a very small minority here.

So yes, (Trump|QAnon) evaluates true on HN, but only because of the first term in the expression.

> QAnon, as malignant as it is, is a relatively small movement even among Trump supporters - probably around 1/4 of his followers.

I have, very much to the destruction of my soul, looked thedonald.win. It's filled to the brim with Q'isms. Donald trump himself has repeated Q'isms, and has retweeted Qanon-based tweets on numerous occasions(https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/12/trump-tweeting-qano...). At this point, you can not separate Trump supporters from the QAnon crowd, they are virtually the same crowd, not with the big T himself retweeting (well not anymore, I give you that) QAnon bunk.

I also have to say, for somebody that was clamoring for me to show the very specific amounts of very specific evidence, you counter claim now has nothing of the sort of rigor you expected of me.

And you never showed me one single QAnon post on HN.

I feel that you are either unwilling or unable to respond to or absorb a single point I make.

Sorry I couldn't connect, but this discussion is moot.

Think of it this way, if 4chan wasn’t a website, no one would allow it to exist.

Web technology has a certain responsibility, so I think all the alternative communication tech is in response to the theme of this week.

Agreed, context here is timely for sure. Large groups perhaps trying to secretly coordinate online to stage an '' event''? Web technologies for this are abundant; and yet so very easily infiltrated. End to end encryption is redundant if you've no idea who to trust.