Welcome to HN, where your comments aren't censored, but insead they are 'groomed' by those who consistently cherish 'valuable' conversations by pandering to 'karma' points.

The 'correct' dialog is to discuss how it's natural for our systems of governance to want to spy on everyone, and the 'correct' actions fall between accepting this or petitioning our masters to roll back 'some' of these advances.

Your individual outrage is of no value to the collective.

pastas, your account is hell-banned so you need not worry about being downvoted anymore. As for your -10, you have your own narrative but let me give you the perspective of someone who had little interest in the "disassociating woman" article and no personal stake in it. Your first two comments on HN ever are a single word discounting the post, with nothing to back it up. To many (including myself) that's a waste of electrons. Your more eloquent responses amount to the same thing, just with more words. You can write that off as "just <my> opinion" (to which I add "duh"), but ask yourself what it was you said that has more substance than just being contrarian.

In summary, if you come into a thread shitting all over things with nothing to back up what you say, you'll get downvoted.

I think you robo-posted to the wrong thread bud.

#edit then in that case you'd think the post would be judged as having no value and be downvoted.... oh wait, that would require a lack of hypocrisy.

Sorry, can't reply to dead posts so I highjacked your reply. If you don't have showdead turned on, you won't see the dead post from user pastas that I replied to. pastas has a theory on his -10 karma, a theory with which I disagree. The unrelated article was referenced because his comments there make a better example.

HN disallows replies to dead comments, so responses are sometimes posted as sibling comments instead.