alt Hacker News>"it's increasingly difficult to actually have a dissenting voice online."
If willing, I would appreciate some examples, actual or hypothetical. I have left a few comments regarding my concerns over AI and have been surprised by the hostile reactions. Much of my research kindof revolves around a central concern matching your statement. But my perspective is in a vacuum, out of touch with what others are dealing with. Feel free to ignore this if not comfortable.
Replies
It was already going downhill a decade ago, eg, using bad think on video games.
But my personal experience is something snapped in a lot of people during COVID when people asked reasonable questions like — “is an experimental gene therapy really QALY positive in populations not at risk, such as healthy children?”
According to government actuarial tables, the answer was no: the UK government concluded that there was no point at which for those under 40 the immunizations prevented more serious outcomes than they caused. But people were (and often still are) absolutely rabid if you point out we (in administering a QALY negative treatment to a vulnerable population) decided to poison children and young adults en masse. I’ve had people look up my mother on Facebook for calmly citing UK government actuarial reports, which did the calculation on COVID vs vaccine harms.
That’s setting aside that on HN you’d get shadowbanned for even posting the clip of BLM leaders describing themselves as “trained Marxists” and BLM itself as Marxist in ideology. Apparently, no matter how politely you state facts, if HN froths irrationally in response it is an “inherent flamewar”.
But I’m not sure I qualify for what you’re asking, as I generally post under my true identity, not anonymously.
Don't apologize for your truth. A lot of people on reddit/HN fancy themselves as free-thinkers and the moment something contradicts their reality they reveal themselves to be as emotionally vulnerable as the rest of humanity.