HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

the writing was on the wall for a while.

this was probably the final nail in the coffin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k

go glimpse it in all its glory before it gets memoryholed

Rewind is kind of old news. Now that time YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki received a Free Expression Award from an organisation sponsored by YouTube[1] is more recent and something else completely, ratio-wise. Currently at 56,502 dislikes vs 226 likes. Which is a ratio of over 250×.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k

⬐ ernst_10

And now Susan is proving those downvotes were more than justified. It's not just that though, also all the left-wing stuff being downvoted is hurting feelings over at Google HQ. They desperately want to believe the public is overwhelmingly on their side.

Susan Wojcicki was awarded a "Free Expression Award" from a company sponsored by... YouTube. [1]

This isn't surprising. YouTube is the home of censorship, and any proclamations of "free speech" are merely corporate marketing.

I don't know how software engineers at YouTube justify to themselves that they're working for a free speech company, given they can easily see the code that "deboosts" content for political reasons, and other censorship.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k

Here is one of those CEO's we should trust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k

Previously YouTube incompetently censored discussion of lab leak theory, allowing misinformation to fester on the platform. [1]

YouTube's Trust and Safety team are actively malicious at this point. This was no error. They regularly censor correct information based on the current thinking among the orthodoxy, which I highly suspect is operating in a cartel manner to censor like-minded topics (hence why FB also sloppily censored the same topic).

Don't worry though, YouTube has been awarded a Free Expression Award from an organization sponsored by... YouTube. [2]

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-07/facebo...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k&t=12s&ab_channel...

The irony and hypocrisy of this are incredible.

In the video, she calls speech they don’t agree with “censorship” and actual censorship “freedom of expression”. If this isn’t a prime example of doublespeak I don’t know what is.

https://youtu.be/xDcvPf78g1k

⬐ kreeben

She's probably addressing her advertisers, not us, in order to ensure them that they have total freedom of expression of "facts about their wonderful products" in a world totally absent of vile critique. That YT is a safe haven, for them, so to speak.

Here[1] is the video. At the time of me writing this comment, the ratio is 53 likes to 15,486 dislikes.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k

⬐ himinlomax

Don't worry, Youtube is set to remove the dislike buttons.

⬐ blibble

just report for inappropriate content instead

⬐ guram11

I never knew I like the downvote

⬐ ziml77

Actually they were testing out hiding the number of dislikes. Not quite the same as removing the dislike button. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they did end up choosing to completely remove the button.

⬐ Udik

> the ratio is 53 likes to 15,486 dislikes.

Don't worry, Youtube has already proposed to hide dislikes numbers. That would be a good place to start.

Edit: wow, 3 comments saying the exact same thing and all 3 starting with "don't worry". Interesting.

⬐ TechBro8615

Maybe we’re all just rage hungry automatons.

⬐ Udik

It seems so.

⬐ itronitron

They're only mistake was not awarding this on April 1st.

⬐ jasonfarnon

they didn't rollout the no dislikes interface quick enough

⬐ SuchAnonMuchWow

I found it amazing that they could not find more than 53 persons to like the video. Don't she know more than 100 persons/friends who could be happy for her to win that award ?

⬐ argvargc

Someone should track the dislikes on this over time, eg: https://81m.org

(Note clicking a vid shows more detail, eg: https://81m.org/videos/juH2Mfre_oM/ )

⬐ echlipse

How funny it would be if Youtube starts shadow banning/censoring this video so people don't see this? What if they test their like/dislike removal on this?

⬐ trident5000

Dont worry, they'll just get rid of those pesky little dislikes to form cognizant conformity as their sponsors want pretty soon.

⬐ AlexandrB

I think this reflects the fact that no one is particularly happy with Youtube. Between the bans, increasingly aggressive (and abusable) copyright strikes, and constantly shifting rules around content and monetization most Youtubers I watch express unhappiness about some aspect of Youtube on a regular basis. Many have started seeking alternative revenue streams to mitigate platform risk.

⬐ TameAntelope

I'm sorry, but I simply can't believe that "no one is particularly happy with YouTube" while so many people still use it, including the vast majority of the people who are supposedly "not particularly happy" with it.

When people ask, "Why hasn't someone disrupted YouTube?" I think the more boring answer that keeps getting overlooked is that it still meets the expectations of enough users, and the dissatisfied constitute a small percentage.

> Many have started seeking alternative revenue streams to mitigate platform risk.

What's wild about this is that the content creators doing this still use YouTube! Even after fully acknowledging the problems, and actively mitigating those negative consequences, they still return to the platform.

I just don't see how that'd happen if it were actually a "bad" service.

⬐ ainar-g

> When people ask, "Why hasn't someone disrupted YouTube?" I think the more boring answer that keeps getting overlooked is that it still meets the expectations of enough users, and the dissatisfied constitute a small percentage.

I've seen a couple of attempts come and go. The ones that wrote a post-mortem after closing often emphasised how many resources—human, software, and hardware—video hosting websites consume. Not even because of the storage or the reencoding, but the sheer amount of bandwidth one needs to run such things globally. And it won't get profitable until a few years later, if ever. The goog is simply one of the few companies that can actually afford doing that.

I personally have been glad that alternatives like Nebula[1] are popping up still. Even if their model is different.

[1]: https://watchnebula.com/

⬐ t-writescode

> I simply can't believe that "no one is particularly happy with YouTube" while so many people still use it

Are you familiar with cable television?

⬐ cbozeman

More troll posts... I guess people haven't seen your username enough yet to realize what your game is, so on behalf of those who haven't picked up on it:

The reason YouTube has no competitor yet is because you'd need $10 billion just to get the platform off the ground - that's servers, developers, datacenters, peering agreements, etc.

Very few people have $10 billion lying around, and no one is interested in tackling Google on their home turf.

⬐ jjeaff

You wouldn't need anywhere near that to launch a comparable competitor, unless the plan is to be at youtube scale on day one, which of course would not be realistic.

⬐ cbozeman

At the moment, in Silicon Valley, if you're not first, you're last.

⬐ rurp

YouTube's brand and network effects are a huge moat, in a market that is massively expensive to build a competitor in. There are only a handful of companies in the world with the available tech talent and capital to create a serious competitor and they apparently aren't interested in trying to attack that moat at this time.

YouTube can absolutely be widely disliked and keep chugging along for the foreseeable future. All it needs to do is not be so bad that people would rather spend their time on something completely different. There is no BingTube with a robust ecosystem that users can easily jump to.

⬐ unishark

From the user's perspective, these are the same benefits the parent poster was referring to however. Giving people the most value for their money is indeed a huge moat for competition.

⬐ Causality1

It's not an objectively bad service, in a vacuum. It's a bad service compared to itself from the past.

⬐ camjohnson26

Where are they going to go? It’s the only decently monetized platform.

⬐ aryanoes

Content creators _can_ go to other platforms like Twitch, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok etc; All these platforms allow for monetization

I think people often overstate just how locked into Youtube they are

⬐ _jal

Youtube wants to be a cable company. Every pageview over there is a pile of demands to subscribe and sign in, before you even get to the ads.

The idea that I'd pay them $65/mo to not look at a bucket of ass when I browse over to Youtube is nuts. I don't pay for "real" cable, why would I pay $700/yr. for a video site I occasionally follow links to?

If you don't like the word 'bad', try 'delusional'.

⬐ onepointsixC

Youtube has operated at best break even revenue, but mostly at a loss for years. Who has the money necessary to do that for years and years?

⬐ camjohnson26

Alphabet does. Most of their services run at a loss but they make so much from ad revenue it doesn’t matter.

⬐ throwaway3699

If they make so much from ad revenue, how are most services run at a loss?

⬐ munk-a

Microsoft could - along with Apple - but I think both of those companies are way too smart to try and enter the market now.

Youtube gets a sort of pass for the crap it's pulling since it's pretty much alone (Sorry - who's this Vimeo fellow you're talking about?) but any other major video service would be held up in comparison against Youtube, as is the way with society, the negative will shine through. If you start writing video suggestion algorithms today how long will it take you to be confident that "Pussy cat strolling across the back porch on a wet afternoon" isn't immediately followed up by WAP?

⬐ p49k

No one has disrupted YouTube because our antitrust laws need to be rewritten to compensate for how tech companies abuse their power in new ways to keep out competition.

⬐ munk-a

Youtube being a place to put videos for free is pretty hard to casually compete with when your pockets need to match google's. I've been surprised to see YouTube actually partially out-compete twitch for streaming and entrench itself as a place where a lot of old media places its broadcast (from PBS to the Colbert Report).

For the first time I think they've got a real competitor though - Nebula has managed to somehow eek out a year long survival and is now scooping up a lot of creators on the educational/informational side of things - and it looks like the platform is essentially a co-op structurally where everyone involved is getting a much larger share of the take home. I think the big question coming up for Nebula is what it will do about "The Algorithm" - will they try and create a suggested feed and invest into that sort of algorithmic video promotion or entrench harder into the "see what you subscribe" approach that will end up hurting small creator discoverability - oh also their platform needs some UX work but I don't think that will be a serious concern.

The interesting long term view for me is that I think subscription based services are going to win out over the freemium ones as those freemium ones continue to dig deeper and deeper into the dark magics of advertiser based revenue - freemium services aren't free, instead of demanding cash for your product they're devaluving their product to recoup their costs.

⬐ philwelch

Nebula is in a rough place. It’s essentially subsidized by CuriosityStream and many of their founding creators have pulled out of the project. More fundamentally, Nebula is explicitly curated, which isn’t an inherently bad thing but it does mean they’re unlikely to solve any “freedom of expression” issues with YouTube. I see Nebula less as a YouTube alternative and more as a premium monetization mechanism for the small clique of YouTubers who are involved in it.

15 likes vs 15.000 DISLIKE, the ratio speak by itself.

https://youtu.be/xDcvPf78g1k

⬐ the-dude

HN Title used to read : YouTube Sponsored Freedom of Expression Award Goes to YouTube CEO

⬐ jsnk

It's a way better title indicating the corporate sponsored nature of the award and the blatant conflict of interest on the award committee and Youtube.

⬐ dang

Yes, corporate press releases are an exception to the usual HN title rule. I'll change it back.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

⬐ fsflover

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26880262

⬐ greatgib

Orignal title was so much more better, or at least mention that it is for her incredible work at Youtube censoring videos...

⬐ thedanbob

You'd think there would be at least one person involved with enough self-awareness to say, "You know, maybe we should disable comments and voting on this video."

⬐ jetrink

Votes currently stand at 34 likes to 11,000 dislikes. Is that a record low ratio on a video with a non-trivial amount of votes?

⬐ adrianb

Rewind 2017 must be worse?

EDIT: Verified, it's not. But it must've been at some point.

⬐ breakfastduck

You'd hope that there wouldn't be a single person involved with such a lack of self-awareness to suggest that a video about a freedom of expression award should have user expression blocked.

⬐ thedanbob

Hah, good point. I guess if they're going to be this tone-deaf they just have to accept the backlash.

⬐ breakfastduck

It's kinda better if they know there will be a backlash and go ahead anyway out of evil or whatever.

It's considerably more disheartening to think that there are people out there with this level of power with no fucking connection with reality.

⬐ newswasboring

Here is a wikipedia page[1] for most disliked youtube videos. On balance I think Sadak 2 trailer wins with 13 mil views and 94.8% dislikes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-disliked_YouTube_...

edit: a word

⬐ blacktriangle

Because nothing says freedom of expression like silencing people.

⬐ not1ofU

"How do you make sure everyone has a voice" (edit: I would like to add, Shenanigans)

⬐ Anon1096

Good thing Youtube plans to remove the dislike button soon. If there's only a thumbs up button, that means that 100% of voters liked the content!

⬐ proactivesvcs

I almost posted a funny reply in the throng of the comments, then realised I don't want to jeopardise my Google account. I didn't reply.

⬐ notdang

The title on HN was also changed.

⬐ teddyh

This right here. Many people say things like “Google would never…”, and they might be right. But that’s not what matters, what matters is people’s beliefs about what Google would do. And this is why Google should have absolutely no influence over your web browser, your programming language, etc. Again, that’s perceived influence, not actual influence. The fear exists regardless.

⬐ grep_name

> your programming language

This is something I've been thinking about. Does anyone avoid Go the way that they avoid other google products? Why or why not? I've been liking it a lot lately as a systems programming language but am not sure how to parse the google side of the equation, as I try to avoid most google offerings

⬐ eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7

> Does anyone avoid Go the way that they avoid other google products?

Hell yes!

Also: It was dead for me the moment a *giant search engine company* decided naming something with 2 letters is a good idea.

That is either proof of being completely negligent with regards to wasting people's time in terms of making their work more difficult; or it is proof of bragging how good your search engine is.

Neither is a favorable thing to do. And actually probably both apply, people do probably miss a lot of good search results on Go no matter how smart their search engine is.

And you can't force everyone in every nook and cranny of the Internet to spell it "golang".

⬐ grawprog

Yes I do, specifically because it is a google product. I have no interest.

More out of principle than any kind of real reason. I don't want to play any part in google getting its tentacles into yet another part of my computer. I know it makes no real difference either way, but there's something about the idea of 'even the language the app's programmed in is owned by google' that just kinda makes me uncomfortable.

⬐ teddyh

> Does anyone avoid Go […]

Well, I do, and I’ve written about it here before¹, but I usually get only downvotes for saying it.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162582 and earlier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8733705

⬐ StandardFuture

Go is one of the few Google things that I will actually use and promote.

I completely understand your justified fear of putting so much stake into a company owned language. It is completely reasonable.

But, since Go is only indirectly benefitting Google (as most of their non-ads products do) then I do not feel that using it is contributing anymore to Google's bottom-line or control than visiting an arbitrary website that uses Google Analytics, or using an Android phone, etc. will do.

But, an important discussion for the Go community (and any company-owned language) to have would be one around the hypothetical of Google shutting off it's contributions to the language.

⬐ teddyh

> But, an important discussion for the Go community (and any company-owned language) to have would be one around the hypothetical of Google shutting off it's contributions to the language.

A discussion would not solve the problem. The most Google (for example) could say is “we would never do that”, and then what? What makes this reliable. Google would instead have to change its image so as to not seem arbitrary and capricious in its bannings. Which they can’t.

⬐ StandardFuture

I thought that it would be obvious that I was referring to a community discussion with or without Google's participation. It should also be obvious that "we would never do that" does not satisfy as a reasonable conclusion to said proposed discussion.

It's rather irritating that a more generous interpretation of my comment was not considered here. Perhaps assume that my comment is not some attack on you or defense of corporate languages but rather an intellectual pursuit of a more nuanced scenario than just "good/bad" judgements?

⬐ teddyh

> I thought that it would be obvious that I was referring to a community discussion

I am sorry for misunderstanding, but it was not obvious to me. Perhaps because I would assume that such a discussion would be useless; if Google stops supporting Go, the language is dead, period.

⬐ grep_name

Thanks for this, it is important to consider the trend of company-owned languages and what it means to participate in that. It'll probably knock me off of Go eventually. Unfortunately I don't see many alternatives that have all the benefits I like about go, but I'll keep looking

⬐ proactivesvcs

I've always looked at their "soft projects" like Golang, HTTP3, QUIC and I guess, Mozilla, as purely ways for them to influence technology in ways that profit their motives, rather than contributing for the sake of improving the industry. It's the long game for them, and it seems to be effective.

⬐ plank_time

Lol YouTube giving their CEO an award for freedom of expression is just about the most Orwellian thing I’ve seen in a long, long time.

And it seems like they did it without it being a joke which is absurd and scary too. They are so far in their own bubble and echo chamber they have no idea what the real world thinks or cares.

⬐ vmception

Title changed does nothing dang, a youtube free expression award is paradoxical and ironic even before they awarded to themselves and by themselves I mean the CEO

⬐ nuisance-bear

It's like military officers in failed states. They are covered head-to-toe in medals an epaulets.

"Honors is epaulets. My pop pop taught me that." -RPF

⬐ thaumasiotes

This is also true of non-failed states. Is there a lesson to draw?

⬐ ofou

15 likes vs 15K DISLIKE, the ratio speak by itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k&ab_channel=Freed...

⬐ BitwiseFool

Those dislikes are going to be removed soon. Only positivity is permitted. You can still downvote but the public will not be allowed to see signs of disapproval.

⬐ endominus

I just did a cursory search. This video was posted a few days ago, but there seems to be zero chatter from American news sites (at least, ones with recognizable names) about it - not even Fox. I'd expect at least some of them to be firing back about "trolls" and "sexists" harassing and insulting Susan Wojcicki, like what happened with [female-protagonist-led Hollywood movie]. The silence is interesting, given the previous narratives. I wonder what's different now.

⬐ DiabloD3

I can't tell if this is a tone deaf joke or not.

⬐ bpodgursky

It looks real to me... which is pretty astounding.

⬐ Qw3r7

Its up there with GM receiving awards from JD Power lol.

But there is nothing stopping itself from being a joke and tone deaf!

Is there a way an award that is for industry that isnt the Nobel prize for something like this?

⬐ stackedinserter

Aside of the absurd nomination/awards: how come that YouTube is CEO-less company for media?

When FB screws up, Zuck's grim is everywhere in media, but when YouTube does the same orwellian stuff, it's just... YouTube, like there's no person behind it.

⬐ None

None

⬐ chaps

Rackspace did similar a few years back when they awarded their CEO with their most fanatical award or whatever it was called. Don't think he stayed at the company for much longer, either.

⬐ theparanoid

The irony considering YouTube's step up of purging channels with alternative viewpoints.

⬐ the-dude

How dare you to think different.

⬐ donw

“Different” is superfluous.

⬐ prezjordan

s/alternative/dangerous

⬐ otterley

I'm not sure what you mean by "alternative viewpoints," but there's no shortage of videos from multiple points of view on YouTube.

⬐ TheAdamAndChe

What's interesting is that the majority of her speech is discussing the suppression of free expression, saying how "authoritative" sources are given priority, advertiser-friendly videos are rewarded and given priority, and others are suppressed.

You can argue the necessity of those actions, but trying to call those actions examples of free expression is the kind of corporate double-speak that erodes trust.

⬐ StandardFuture

Isn't that a clear cut example of Orwellian double-speak?

But not to assume malevolence ...

It's humorous how the aristocratic class is so much more Marie Antoinette these days.

⬐ newswasboring

I find the use of the word suppress to describe what youtube does a bit odd. Now, I am of the opinion that youtube doesn't outright ban most things they find objectionable. That would be suppression (please tell me if I am wrong about this, because otherwise my next few sentences are just fundamentally wrong).

What I see youtube doing is promoting content they like. The video is not itself deleted, its just not promoted (both to users and advertisers). Would you really call that suppression? You can argue its suppression in the sense that when you are so powerful any decision regarding disadvantaging someone is suppression. But I am not totally convinced by that argument, because curating a platform is their entire purpose at this point.

⬐ TheAdamAndChe

I would agree with you if YouTube had started as a platform that from the beginning publicly promoted videos that were advertiser-friendly, but that's not what they did. For years, their algorithms were tailored only to show users the content that they liked, regardless of advertiser status. They had the goofiest, weirdest stuff perfectly suited to my weird personality. They showed lectures and political discussions that I liked discussing.

Then they made the algorithm changes. Instead of showing me videos I like, they suggest videos they like. Those videos often clash with my values or beliefs, but because they are mainstream, they get pushed anyway ad nauseum.

The change of state in the algorithm could be considered suppression. Another way of looking at it would be just the viewer counts of certain categories of videos has plummeted. Alt-right speakers and lecturers, flat-earthers, trump supporters, racial identitarians, and so on have seen a massive drop in viewers. Right or wrong, that algorithmic change that led to a drop in viewers is a form of suppression.

I want to emphasize that suppression isn't always wrong. A massive site like YouTube has to monitor for violent social contagion and contain that. But I don't think they should then use their suppression as an example of free expression, because it's not.

Edit: also to be absolutely clear here, the definition of "suppression" I'm using is the intentional attempt by YouTube to reduce the viewership and engagement in something.

⬐ StandardFuture

> suppression isn't always wrong.

when is it correct? Who makes that judgement?

⬐ TheAdamAndChe

> when is it correct?

People differ in their opinions. It's clear that some media should be suppressed, like violent calls to action by powerful people. It's clear that some media shouldn't be suppressed, like videos of puppies. In between lies a vast gray area where it's less clear.

> Who makes that judgement?

People do, particularly influential people who make judgements and have the capacity to illicit the change required. Currently it's set by corporations, but the bounds of that are heavily influenced by and can be superseded by governments. That's why after the 2016 elections, you had all the hearings of the owners and managers of big social media sites.

⬐ dTal

Do they... do they not realize how this looks?

⬐ grej

Farcical. I was going to downvote it, but didn’t want to find myself surprise locked out of my Gmail account a few months from now with no explanation.

⬐ bassman9000

Which is why you should start preparing for it ASAP.

⬐ None

None

⬐ bassman9000

I just noticed the top right

Presented by signature sponsor: YouTube

https://i.imgur.com/CwIpcbM.jpg

⬐ DevKoala

Similar to getting the Nobel Peace award for 8 years of war.

⬐ vmception

Our Freedom of Expression award comrades

⬐ lvs

That is an Onion headline if I ever saw one.

⬐ sova

Maybe Feynman was right about prizes...

⬐ goatcode

The free expression in the video's comments is pretty good so far.

⬐ bjornlouser

This is the opening salvo in her bid for Kamala's Senate seat...

⬐ somethingtoday

The irony of the title change on this specific topic is striking.

⬐ rvz

Slight correction: Last place awarded for free expression goes to the YouTube CEO.

From [0]

> Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world.

> We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories.

> Our values are based on four essential freedoms that define who we are.

Mission failed successfully!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/about/

⬐ ortusdux

I wonder if they will censor the comments or turn off commenting, because they are pretty critical at the moment.

⬐ throw7

This was 14 days late.

⬐ hervature

I think you mean 19 days? April 1st?

⬐ CorruptedArc

It'd be like Facebook giving themselves an award for information security and protection of personal data.

⬐ eplanit

This isn't parody/sarcasm?

⬐ medicineman

Like giving the peace prize to the droner-in-chief.

⬐ vonsydov

Extended April fools y’all

⬐ paxcoder

Hello from the censored side.

⬐ microdrum

I think YouTube will still remove a video if a scientist or physician talks about COVID having a 0.03% mortality rate.

⬐ vmception

This is one of those scenarios where a large organization hired a female CEO to crucify her

The wrong kind of inclusivity, California, tech, Alphabet

⬐ hervature

Are you saying that female CEOs can't crucify themselves? She didn't have to accept this award.

⬐ vmception

Nothing I said is to suggest a reduced sense of agency or choice for females

Only the sad example this sets that suggests they have to be even more vigilant to shut down bad optics that the divisions they oversee will create or that their parent company might throw onto them, a distraction which is the opposite of privilege

⬐ prvc

Is this one of those "conspiracy theories", about which I have been hearing so much lately?

⬐ yunohn

You're suggesting that she was hired in 2014 for inclusivity, and spent the last decade making YT the most popular video streaming website ever.. just to give this "award" in 2021 to crucify her?

⬐ vmception

Not hired for inclusivity, but now to crucify her, yes

Everyone should have thought twice here and they didn’t

⬐ mc32

At least when the Nobel committee awarded the peace prize to Obama before he trotted into the Middle East they have the excuse of not having a crystal ball into the future.

Here despite all evidence to the contrary and its being a commercial endeavor, which entails conflict of interest, they grant this antithesis to freedom of expression an award for freedom of expression. Excuse me if I feel disturbed by their apparent lack of awareness or gross farce.

⬐ ravenstine

My favorite, and maybe a somewhat more apt example involving Obama, was when South Korea gave him a tae kwan do black belt.

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-le...

I don't really have much against Obama (and not like he couldn't accept it), but that was a real "oh brother" moment for me.

⬐ StandardFuture

Perhaps someone misunderstood or misheard the phrase "America's First Black (belt) President".

⬐ StandardFuture

It is genuinely irksome that an entirely silly comment like this gets more attention and upvotes than numerous downvoted intellectual comments have been receiving on HN over the past year.

Maybe it's just the pandemic or what not but it is very evident that HN has slowly devolved to reddit level discussion since COVID.

And, simply claiming "it's not that bad" does not prove that it is objectively much better.

⬐ johnnyanmac

This comment is higher up and many people don't make it to the bottom of the comments section, meaning it only takes a few downvotes early on to give those comments less attention and lower scores. "freedom" (for lack of a better word) is a controversial topic, so the relatively few people with the power to downvote may try their hands there.

I wouldn't really take this example as some rising trend. jokes are hard to be angry at. controversial topics (regardless of stance and care taken to be impartial, if any) are very easy.

⬐ whatshisface

>At least when the Nobel committee awarded the peace prize to Obama before he trotted into the Middle East they have the excuse of not having a crystal ball into the future.

That's not much of an excuse, typically people wait for after something happens to deliver an award for it.

⬐ mc32

I agree, but at least they can claim they based it on hope due to promises.

This award, on the contrary, is looking back with an abundance of evidence to the contrary and despite that evidence go on with a complete farce. Even Soviets would put on some pretense of legitimacy.