We're on the verge of losing the some very key values the internet provides here. We have to take our heroes as we can get them. Snowden has his flaws, but compared to the beast he's fighting it's clear who's worse.
I'm not worried about this troll, I'm worried about people seeing their post, seeing no one slap it down and assume it's not a dangerous opinion to have.
Someone who hasn't seen any comments opposed to Snowden, hasn't been reading HN. Especially-prolific names like "rayiner" (as well as others) have been all over this one. These questions aren't "dangerous", they're braindead.
The Snowden drama is all that's keeping this relevant. The public tends to be like a sleeping person. If you tell them the house is on fire, the first they will do is try to get rid of you because you are a nuance. If you persist they will give up on trying to be rid of you and try to find out why you won't stop and attack that instead, unless it appears harder to be rid of than you are.
You can't just call everything you disagree with "trolling". This is exactly the lack of diversity of thought OP was asking about. Now we're not even allowed to question the Snowden-worship?
It's probably a mistake to take this one seriously, but here goes. OP claimed to have seen only "Snowden-worship" on HN. That claim is so at odds with reality as to be trolling. I'll admit that most comments approve of Snowden, but the proportion is probably something like 3-2. If you have a genuine criticism of Snowden or HN or any particular comment, let's hear it. But to whine about "diversity of thought", as if we can't actually read all the hundreds of Snowden-critical comments on HN, is pathetic. Please don't be pathetic.
reply