zlacker

Still, I think Thomas is right: your comment is an example of what needs to be avoided to prevent further devolution. The issue isn't whether you are right or wrong, whether the comment is political or non-partisan. Rather it's whether HN or any online community can take on such issues without destroying itself. Historically, the odds are poor. If we want to keep quality of the technical discussion high, I think that comments such as yours need to be reserved for elsewhere.

>>nkurz+(OP)
If we had a vi-versus-emacs debate, most people would know not to state their views too strongly. Or even if someone did, other people would refuse to take the bait.

With politics, there seems to be no such restraint.

>>nkurz+(OP)
Perhaps. Infosec is critically important to our society, and HN appears to be responsible for radicalizing a large fraction of practitioners. It is not even a radicalization of substance, but collateral damage from a forgettable unrelated political campaign.

Now it is just about too late. For the next 10-20 years, national infosec policy will be driven by the radicals' memory of their principled stand against the NSA "revelations". "Abuses" will be "curtailed" without regard for legitimate security needs.

The is no elsewhere to reserve this discussion for. If HN is credulous enough to believe staged CNN sound bites, there is no hope for other venues.