zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. btilly+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-22 20:51:18
Clearly there are a bunch of people voting down anything that is too critical of China.

WHY there are a bunch of people voting that down I leave to others to speculate. But I'm going to vote up any verifiable factual statements that have been voted down.

replies(2): >>Fricke+fa >>dang+6q
2. Fricke+fa[view] [source] 2021-03-22 21:34:10
>>btilly+(OP)
There are no pertinent facts anywhere in this thread. There are no pertinent facts available. We just don't know, and likely won't ever know.
replies(1): >>loulou+Oe
◧◩
3. loulou+Oe[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 21:52:26
>>Fricke+fa
And we should ask that is. The fact that investigations to find patient 0, either never happened or were covered up is strong evidence for the WIV leak theory.
4. dang+6q[view] [source] 2021-03-22 22:48:13
>>btilly+(OP)
HN has plenty of people who feel strongly on both sides of this issue. In my experience there are many more on your side than the other (probably by an order of magnitude)—certainly the number of times I've had to moderate comments breaking the site guidelines on China-related topics is over 10x lopsided, and no we're not looking to moderate one side more than the other. (Just the unpleasantness of being accused of ugly prejudice from every conceivable angle is enough to make one scrupulous to the point of paranoia about this.)

Each side is utterly convinced that the other side dominates the site and is sinisterly manipulating/astroturfing the community. None of these feelings is based on any reality that I've ever been able to observe. It's all imagination driven by emotion. When it comes to this topic, the main impression I gets from trying to keep this place in some semblance of guidelines-respecting order is one of mass-psychological, tribally motivated insanity.

replies(1): >>btilly+kP
◧◩
5. btilly+kP[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 01:47:10
>>dang+6q
I agree with all of that.

However the fact that all of the Chinese supporting votes showed up at once, and then the others show up slowly is supportive of a group of people working together.

replies(1): >>dang+wS
◧◩◪
6. dang+wS[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:14:01
>>btilly+kP
I really don't think that's correct. Rather it's the eternal problem that randomness contains sequences that look and feel non-random—these are more likely to get noticed, and then get (over)interpreted to fit a pre-existing narrative.

I don't mean to pick on you personally! Everyone does this.

[go to top]