I’m banned so I don’t know if anyone will see this, but I wanted to share more details on this capital gains tax. In Washington, income taxes are different based on income levels are unconstitutional. So you cannot have a capital gains tax that only applies to income levels above some threshold, like this one is. To get around that, Washington’s Democratic legislators started claiming that capital gains tax is an excise tax rather than an income tax, and therefore no longer subject to the constraints of the state’s constitution.
In every state and the federal level, capital gains are a form of income tax. This includes Washington state, where the department of revenue explicitly classified it as such in line with the common definition of this tax. However, the state’s Supreme Court has become highly activist over time, due to a long history of WA being a one-party blue state. And in one of the lawsuits against this unconstitutional tax, the state Supreme Court surprisingly agreed with the legislators in redefining capital gains tax as an excise tax instead of an income tax (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-suprem...).
This tax is now being collected for the first time, and it is much larger in its collections than expected. Most of the money will go to K-12 schools, which is strange because school funding in WA has more than doubled in the last 10 years with little to show for it (see https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/states-...). Also, although school funding follows the student typically - meaning reduced enrollment at a public school leads to reduced funding - the first $500m of this tax will only go to public schools.
I expect this tax will see its thresholds reduced over time. Its initial proposal was to apply to any capital gains over $25K, not $250K. It was changed to the higher limit to give it a better chance of passing and sticking. But with the state Supreme Court redefining words and setting this precedent, the legislature is free to change the tax threshold and rate in the future.
So what is your opinion that you are trying to present here? That it's wrong because it isn't following the definition you expect income tax to fall under or schools don't have the ROI you would hope for? I just don't know why schools were even brought up.
This is what happened to me. I was shadowbanned or something like it for a comment made a few days earlier. The mod did tell me but I didn’t realize it because I would have needed to look through my comment history. I had no idea until another user pointed it out to me.
I’ll volunteer myself as an example, as I was recently shadow banned (or some variant of banned). My other comment in this discussion has some details. I don’t think I am particularly controversial but maybe you can share a different perspective.
> At the end of the day, it's just another form of censorship.
This is how I feel right now, since there doesn’t seem to be a good way to openly debate the policies (or dark patterns like shadow bans) once you become subject to actions taken under those policies. All you can do is appeal to the moderators by email. It’s something, but a private conversation isn’t the same as a community debate. And a community debate isn’t possible once you are silenced. I’m not sure what the right solution is.
In my case, someone called me a nitwit and my response to them was deemed engaging in a flamewar even though I was mostly just clarifying my earlier comment/stance (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30255599). And then upon further investigation from the moderator, I apparently didn’t have the right mix of topics I post on and was deemed to be engaging in ideological battle. It seems arbitrary to me because here are the topics I see in my recent comments:
Canada protest, climate change, Neil Young, biometric identity verification, a tool to contact representatives, the Olympics, MacBook Pros, Google Slides, GoFundMe (I had many comments on this one admittedly), search engine results, Delta airline policy, compensation trends, cars, Microsoft Teams, mathematics, Roku spyware, and rent increases.
So what is a well meaning user to do if they want to just engage on the stories most meaningful to them? Is it really a bad thing to post on topics that are controversial rather than straightforward? On the other hand, I am not sure what other community is better than HN, even if I dislike censorship. So maybe they’re doing something right and I’m on the wrong side of it after all.
You're right that the exchange you linked to wasn't banworthy. But that exchange wasn't the problem.
The fundamental problem is that you're not writing from a position of intellectual curiosity. But the real issue is that you're interfering with why people come to the site: to be entertained. Almost all moderation actions make sense when viewed through that lens, and it took many years to realize and accept this hard truth.
People mostly aren't here for some sort of enlightenment, or to save the world, or to have their minds changed about politics. When you post here, you're broadcasting to millions of people, and around 50k of them see and engage with the top comments on a thread.
That's the high level overview. Zooming back into your account, within the last week you've posted almost entirely on political topics. That's not necessarily a bad thing (but it's usually a bad sign). The issue is that you have to frame these topics in a very delicate, substantive (double underscores on "substantive") way.
In the "Florida governor to investigate GoFundMe" thread, you spawned ten different subthreads. In the future, when you sense a topic is making you want to talk this much, you should treat it as an alarm, and pay close attention. (This helped me break some old habits, and I hope it helps you when you do get unbanned.)
If you collapse https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30225484, you'll notice that there are 90 total comments underneath that tree. That's a flamewar. It also happens to be a political flamewar, which is the worst type for HN's goals.
> More importantly, Neil Young has shown himself to be for censorship and against the free exchange of ideas. His stance is fundamentally at odds with free societies that harbor enlightenment values.
These were the worst, but your comments are doing the equivalent of tossing around molotovs. It's no surprise that some of them start fires.
When you do this repeatedly, it's the moderation team's duty to ban you. Again, people come here primarily for entertainment. You need to internalize this in order to experience a meaningful long-term change in behavior.
I'm spending this much time talking with you because I sense that you're a thoughtful person. But when you care so much about politics, you need to channel those energies somewhere else. Twitter is a decent one; it's where I took refuge when I was banned. https://lobste.rs/ too, when you want to talk about technical topics. Their stories often overlap HN's, and the crew there has unique perspectives relative to HN's audience. I like them a lot.
- Saying that GoFundMe's decision to pause donations to Canada truckers was due to government pressure, and calling it a "chilling and tyrannical suppression of the right to protest": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30200795
I could go on and on, and I haven't even reached two weeks into your account history. But it's 3 am.
The trouble is, it doesn't matter whether you're correct about the things that you're saying. I might even agree with you that eviction bans are interfering with property rights. But when you frame it as an "unconstitutional seizure of private property," that's an entirely different matter. At that point, the war drums are banging, and you're the drummer.
Here's what I would recommend you do. First, internalize that if you're banned, no one will miss you. (They didn't miss me.)
Second, decide whether you wish to participate on HN. (I did.)
(I just reviewed them myself, and learned that I was recently guilty of "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." So this is a good exercise.)
Once you've internalized that HN is for curious conversation, start trying to have some. I recommend you restrict yourself to technical topics. Do this for at least one week.
At the end of the week, email hn@ycombinator.com, link to those comments, and explain that you understand now that HN isn't meant for political flamewar and that you'll try (hard) not to fall back into your old habits.
If you follow this recipe to a T, there's a good chance you'll be unbanned and happily HN'ing within a month.
The truth is that you're lucky. You have a straightforward path towards becoming unbanned. Mine included not being able to post to the site at all, even while banned.
Good luck. If you'd like to talk more extensively about this, you're always welcome to DM me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/theshawwn I'm happy to lend an ear and to keep you company while you're banned.
The key is to just find a topic that makes you happy, and talk a lot about that. Mine turned out to be ML. It's difficult (though not impossible) to damage HN by nerding out about ML. And frankly, I don't miss the days when I was trying to talk about heated topics. Perhaps in a year or two you'll feel the same way.
On a totally unrelated side note, I profoundly want to thank you for pointing out that threads can be collapsed.
I am using GN since 2011 now and never knew this. I wondered how and just now realized the small '-' at the end of a comment headline. This was really a revelation to ne right now.
For sure! Lots of new features are pretty subtle. Thread collapsing was added in.. 2016 or 2017, I think. It’s relatively recent, at least when viewed from HN’s total history.
Many humans. Rich life (individual freedoms and high material quality of life). Low environmental impact. Pick two.
EDIT: this apparently is one of my most disliked comments. To clarify, my point is that we can’t have both unlimited population growth and a high quality of life without accepting environmental impacts. If a high population of people have to crowd into dense micro apartments and give up cars and face constant bans on things they like, then their environmental footprint may reduce but their quality of life will go down. On the other hand if population controls were instituted, then a high quality of life could be possible with a sustainable level of environmental impact.
> Many humans. Rich life (individual freedoms and high material quality of life). Low environmental impact. Pick two.
I really don't buy this, it seems illogical to me.
We have technologies that can produce a rich and comfortable life with much less or zero emissions, nuclear, renewables. We don't need to fuck stuff up as bad as we have. We've fucked stuff up this bad because of lobbying, resources companies have lobbied and fought long and hard to keep selling this poison to the world. To keep us buying cars that use petroleum. To keep people believing that it's either oil and coal or you're going back to the stone age it's bull shit because oil and coal is the stone age.
If you buy into those technologies I've mentioned above, you don't really have to entirely give up the life you know, in fact you might get to keep the life you love and have cleaner, better air to breathe.
We've woken up, but we still have those cretins doing their dirty work (the Australian Government for example.
We're already way beyond the carrying capacity of the planet, without fossil fuel inputs.
There are only two options:
1. Split more nuclei, fuse nuclei at +EROEI, and collect more photons.
2. 4 billion people starve to death.
Population control was a fun idea in the 1970s, but that ship has already sailed. We either experience mass die-offs, or we engineer our way out. Full stop.
If we can't live comfortably on earth (even with the worst expected effects from climate change), how can we live on another planet or in outer space which has a far less hospitable environment than any climate change could cause here on earth.
I think of space colonies as being protection from some catastrophic event on earth, not as an answer to climate change.
It's not like we could move significant numbers of people off the planet... and if we can build a spaceship or habitat on another planet that people can survive (and thrive) in, it would be much much easier to build the same habitat here on earth. I would bet that even building an underwater city would be much easier than a moon colony or orbiting space station.
Yeah, I've had that thought often enough. If we can't make people enjoy living in (insert least popular region in your cultural environment), how would anybody want to live in space/the moon/on Mars?
These days it's flanked by a much darker counter: well at least space would provide a society that has reproduction under control with a reasonably wide moat from breeders.
It means creating such an abundance of technology that we will be able to supplant the limitations that we are currently operating under so that we can fundamentally alter our opportunities as a species.
Rather than spending the next few hundred years going round and round in ever-decreasing circles, obsessing over reducing the human impact on the planet to negligible levels using limited technological advances, while remaining largely inward-looking and ensconced within our gravity well.
I find that there's a weird mixture of pessimism (billions will die of starvation within 30 years) and hubris (we need to adopt measure X so that we can achieve Y degrees of warming by 2050, rather than Y+1 degrees) that has categorised the more prominent Malthusian technocrats over the last few decades (such as the Club of Rome, and then the IPCC).
I am surprised news outlets are still trying to give life to this manufactured crisis. Who cares what Neil Young thinks about any of this? Why are these celebrities put on a pedestal by news media and individuals? At best, Neil Young is a has-been whose music will soon be forgotten by newer generations that have long since moved on.
More importantly, Neil Young has shown himself to be for censorship and against the free exchange of ideas. His stance is fundamentally at odds with free societies that harbor enlightenment values. The problem is not Rogan or Ek, but Young and the new authoritarian pro-censorship/deplatforming political tribes, who abuse their voice and power to silence those who don’t share their ideology. That’s not the stance of reasonable people - that’s the stance of zealots, no different than religious zealots of a different era.
> I am surprised news outlets are still trying to give life to this manufactured crisis.
They’ll keep writing the articles for as long as people are going to click them. These are the same outlets that can spin a couple of tweets into a story about a “growing backlash to xyz”. However low you imagine the bar to be, it’s lower.
Wrong. If there's an issue with public safety Spotify has 51%+ responsibility. Joe less. If no issue Young is talking about a non problem. The rest of your adjective laden diatribe is off topic.
Get in the game. There a wide limits to what you can opine; it's finite and large and a few things have consequences. Narrow: Spotify kicks Joe off; Joe walks elsewhere. Or legal. Nobody said consequence free.
Anything can be construed to be a safety issue. Spotify has no responsibility. It’s a dumb pipe and people can make up their own mind as to what to do with information they receive from content creators. If you think exchanging information is dangerous to the point that it requires censorship, then you’re arguing for authoritarianism and tyranny.
You can't post personal attacks like this to HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.
Perhaps you don't feel you owe people you disagree with better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it—much better.
And, for the record, please set out here in detail how you became aware of something you felt needed above? Second, who is @dang; a subscriber or admin for HN? Please state role.
Acknowledged - moderator. You did not yet make clear however, how you became aware of this issue. I think that deserves a mention; nice to have not required. I can put 2+2 together either way.
Now as my part here, and to conclude. I lost the moral high ground by name calling. It weakened my position. It was an unforced error; nobody to blame but myself. So please accept my apologies.
I'll redouble my efforts:
- Professional managers know how products, services, and assets the company own or run relate to top, bottom line. Managers also know that assets don't run the company nor do they have a profit motive or pay taxes. Assets do not make meaning. People do. And in particular those who have choice which arises out control usually through seniority, ownership, but also common sense are charged with staying on the right side public health. Anything less is a problem. Spotify seems to know that, so good for them.
- Relegating Spotify as a dumb pipe reminds me of a person I knew several years ago was wont to say: "I don't talk ``X"; I just do technical." X was politics/management and related issues. This isn't the time or place to unpack this more. But there is a strong sense of a willful disassociation a distortion really between tech and the environment in which tech is used to the good or bad. I also think that's a problem.
@throwawaysea This reply in context to your original post above is ... well ... is a mixed blessing too.
It does not. In the big scheme of things it really does not; I am on the same page as you there.
Now, I want explicitly point out that if reported then surely that leaves some non-zero work for @throwawaysea who wrote:
>Anything can be construed to be a safety issue ... If you think exchanging information is dangerous to the point that it requires censorship, then you’re arguing for authoritarianism and tyranny.
Right? Because by that analysis HN is conspiring in censorship or is censoring.
Be clear: not my position at all. The HN complaint was: hey, keep it professional and naming calling isn't professional. I stand corrected there.
The larger point is:
- I do not feel nor would I argue I was censored; certainly not
- it is not the case communication for or against some issue X is censorship
- we are not helped to better assess issues that leave the domain of petty, serious, or deep disagreement into censorship and tyranny by confusing inanimate things with the people above it that put those assets to work.
Spotify pays for exclusivity. They are not a “dump” pipe you nitwit.
And this is literally Neil Young expressing his first amendment rights in our capitalist market system based on voluntary exchange.
Go read Wealth of Nations, the Constitution, the treaty of Westphalia, the Magna Carta, some Hayek, some Friedman, and an intro to civics and economics lot.
You have absolutely no idea how our system of laws, economy, or government works.
Resorting to ad hominem attacks on HN? Given the wealth of reading you signal you've done, you'd do well to start with the Hacker News Guidelines before commenting further [1]
You can't post personal attacks like this to HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.
Perhaps you don't feel you owe people you disagree with better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it—much better.
To me, Spotify is a dumb pipe connecting listeners to content they want to hear. I use the phrase “dumb pipe” because the users don’t care about much of their features beyond that aspect (and there really aren’t many features). The libraries of alternative services also mostly overlap. Additionally, marginal attempts at exclusivity or editorialized content don’t change what they materially are, just like a telecom utility adding content businesses (like Verizon and Oath) doesn’t get to escape their status as a common carrier utility service.
I also didn’t ask that Neil Young be denied his first amendment rights, so you’re attacking a straw man. But I did point out that he is abusing his power (of celebrity) to try and silence political adversaries. Censorship is censorship. It doesn’t matter if it is brought on by the government or individuals with power or masses with collective power.
As for your patronizing tone telling me what to read - I’ve actually read some of those things you listed, for what it’s worth.
Would you please stop perpetuating flamewars on HN? You've been doing it a lot lately—enough that I'm starting to wince when I see your username. It's not what this site is for, and it evokes worse from others, and you're responsible for provoking that.
Edit: I took a closer look and saw that you've clearly been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against—it's in fact the worst thing you can contribute to destroying this place for its intended purpose. Here are links to many past explanations:
Since we've asked you many times to use HN as intended and you've continued not to, I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> I am surprised news outlets are still trying to give life to this manufactured crisis.
The purpose of this particular manufactured crisis is to take out Joe Rogan, who does not kowtow to the COVID-19 zeitgeist.
> who abuse their voice and power to silence those who don’t share their ideology.
Reminds me of the quote, 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win' [0]. This is the 'fight you' phase of Humanity's rebellion against the charlatans (you used zealot [1], but I think charlatan [2] is more appropriate).
Two tweets about the attempted cancellation of Joe Rogan:
"This is a professional political attack. Three waves one right after the other is not a coincidence. Good spacing, good timing, so it's absolutely professional." - https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/149022042327069900... (thread ties the Rogan hatcheting to a Super PAC)
A free market, though it does not exist, includes companies censoring anything and everything. The idea that consumers can't tell a business what to do is yet more fascism via capitalism.
It’s not that a consumer can’t tell a business something - I would not advocate for that either. It’s that some people are preventing competing political voices from being heard. It’s that people with power (like Young) want to use their power to shut down others. I am not sure what you mean by “fascism via capitalism” but I don’t think the word “fascist” holds much meaning anyways, and hasn’t for a long time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(insult)
What I would like to see next is an investigation into why this process was considered at all and how the vendor was selected. I find this entire situation deeply suspicious, since MOST online services (including financial services) do not need this kind of invasive verification process and do not require interfacing with a random third-party. My cynical guess is that id.me has some connection (like via political donations) to those who had the power to effect this change.
>Let us also find out why a non governmental entity is handling *
Ex-gov here. It is baked into gov thinking that the most desirable solution to difficult problems is to give it to the commercial sector. To a degree, it recognizes that a core responsibility of US gov is to support US commerce. One may argue how that philosophy encourages certain forms of corruption (swinging door, price abominations etc) but it's an accepted cost of doing business. What's good for GM is still, in those corridors, felt to be good for America.
I'm not arguing that this is a good thing. But it's how US gov thinks. That is why these problems are farmed out to the commercial sector. And as ex-gov, I can tell you that the government is a cash cow. And that's how they like it. And business. They like that too.
Has anyone identified which politician or subset of politicians helped give this specific idea life? Not the general one about contracting out work through bidding where the circumstances call for it. The specific one about doing so as a global approach to such an extent that we have non government entities handling so many core competencies.
