Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've been on the Internet for decades at this point and one thing I've noticed is that communities that, for example, ban political topics actually mean "positions I don't like" as "political". This is somewhat related to the Overton window but really a bunch of (mostly conservative) ideas get normalized so aren't deemed "political".

I see the same thing with "AI Slop". Yes, there is AI Slop but (IME) it's pretty easy to spot. But what's more annoying is how often people are willing to throw that accusation whenever someone takes a position they don't like, much like the "political" label. It's lazy and honestly just as bad as the slop itself because it unintentionally launders the slop in a "boy who cried wolf" kind of way.

I also have a theory that some AI slop isn't inherently successful. It's just heavily botted by people who are interested in promoting certain positions. I bet you could make a pro-administration LLM bot and another one promoting a communist revolution and no amount of model tuning would make the second as popular as the first because the first would hit third-party botting as well as platform content biases (eg Twitter).

I've personally been accused of being a bot. This is particularly true in recent time as I've tried to share facts and fact-based analysis of, say, what's going on with crude oil markets, the military operation in the Gulf and the politics and economics around it. I even saw one hilarious comment saying (paraphrased) "the bots are getting clever and posting about unrelated topics". This was funny because it never occurred to this person that no, it was just a real person posting something you disagreed with.



> I've been on the Internet for decades at this point and one thing I've noticed is that communities that, for example, ban political topics actually mean "positions I don't like" as "political".

This happens on HN all the time. For a lot of downvoters and flaggers, there are two kinds of opinions: "Things I agree with" and "Too political for HN."


And yet if that was entirely the case, HN wouldn't be such an interesting place. This sounds very much like someone making fun of the attempts of rationalism/effective altruism "because humans are not rational but emotional beings". Yes, it is mostly true but not entirely true and that's what makes a difference.

I am certainly guilty of downvoting (not flag) people I disagree with but I also read the guidelines and will downvote or flag a comment that seems to originate from one of my ingroups that would violate those norms because I value this place.

And I have also been able to nuance my own opinions by reading a well-behaved (respecting HN norms) comment even though I don't like its vibe.

I didn't see the flag system being abused. The flagged comments I have seen were most egregious norm violations. Whereas posts are generally flagged when they inherently highly flammable. It's generally a edge case and some of those make it through with a little moderation warning as top comment.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: