> And the fact that there is actual debate and discussion around this issue on HN is just such a shocker.
Thats what makes HN special, the community questions, discusses and debates. It doesnt just jump to an emotional response as it seems like you have done. If you cant engage in a debate or discussion around something you dont agree with, the HN is not the place to be.
With all of my commentary, this is the point that you're fixated on? I'm clearly not saying that I don't agree with the fact that there's disagreement here, I'm just surprised about the nature of the disagreement. The HN crowd is sophisticated, and to see that they're supportive of reinstating Tiktok on the grounds of 'free speech' or what have you seems like a reductionist oversimplification to me. To argue that we should allow Tiktok because of free speech, in the global context of how it's being used as a data mining and mind-manipulation machine seems like a total non starter to me. And I would expect more community members to weigh that more seriously given how seriously they take security; given the context of how much time the community spends splitting hairs about the future of encryption, forever boycotting Arc for exposing a cookie, etc.
the comment that wong replied to was unsubstantial. wong should not have responded the way they did but samr71 comment was in fact posting reddit level diatribe without engaging in good faith after wong clearly put time and effort into their post.
The last part would have added something to the conversation over your initial post. You are actually under no obligation to post at all, the downvote arrow is right there.
Earnestly though, you can always take your post, toss it into a llm and ask it to make it sound kind or helpful. Or give it the HN comment guidelines and ask it if your comment runs afoul or ways to make it more helpful. It’s up to you to find a way to add meaningfully to the discourse or just be prepared to be downvoted. Assume good faith is the best way to start.
