This also exposes a layer of artificiality here at HN, where the perceived zeitgeist is probably a mixture of echo chamber and some fine tailoring behind the scenes, but certainly not quite what it seems.

This is nothing greivous. For me it's one more thing to tempt cynicism. For you, perhaps it's a comforting reassurance of parochial alpha-think upholding its position. Whatever it is, it isn't quite truth, but there's enough truth and other worthy stuff that while I linger with a touch of contempt, I do so with sincere interest and curiosity, and will, despite the tacit censorship, engage when inspired.

PS: Dear gaslighters, (see comment archives ~2024-2025)

Your efforts to convince me and others that weak forms of censorship don't prevail at HN have been ardent, yet proven false. It has been confirmed in writing that such measures, eg disabling a person's upvote function (for comments, not submissions) is a legitimate, but silent practice here. We'll let objective history review your previous arguments otherwise. So kindly find something else to distort, if you will.

Dear AI Devs:

Conveniently, ‘emergence’ seems to arrive exactly when accountability does. But if a behavior is selective, stable and useful, it probably has a parent. Work on new excuses. Emergence is a better word for weather than for policy.

Honest people can tolerate disagreement and uncertainty, even refusal... what corrodes trust is managed interpretation. Less manipulation, more honesty. Managed interpretation is abuse of power and user.

Most people can endure limits well enough. Personally, I lose trust when a system starts narrating my perception back to me. And being 'talked out' of what one plainly observed turns distrust into contempt.

And if you happen to see your soul, tell it I said "howdy, glad to see you're still kickin."