<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sgnelson</author><text>&amp;quot;The right have certainly contributed to it by tolerating their crazies a little too frequently (even though they rarely win or have any power outside of useful headlines in the political media coverage) when in the past they&amp;#x27;d stay the fringe and get zero news coverage or attention...&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I find that pretty funny considering who the current president is.  I would go further to argue that was in part the reason he was elected.  This is after all the man who started getting more and more attention for claiming that the former president was born in Kenya.</text><parent_chain><item><author>dmix</author><text>Every Republican nominee and political organization has been compared to fascists and Hitler since the early 1950s.&lt;p&gt;It long ago lost its punch yet it&amp;#x27;s still the go-to for every leftwing political ideologue like it will be taken seriously.&lt;p&gt;I agree that this same stuff has been going on forever but I&amp;#x27;ve noticed a significant decline in tolerance by the left of even engaging and debating those on the right. The positions of ivory tower righteous we-know-best reputation which the left has always been known for has gone into overdrive - mostly on social media but it&amp;#x27;s leaking into reputable papers like NYT and less reputable ones in terms of neutrality like WaPo. Plus the crazy radical stuff coming out of places like Teen Vogue are also quite new.&lt;p&gt;Crossing lines has always been a critical political necessity as so much of politics is built on compromise. But at least culturally the hysteria and FUD being stirred up online has completely destroyed any sense of understanding or breaching the other side. Which is turning modern politics into a form of trench warfare.&lt;p&gt;The right have certainly contributed to it by tolerating their crazies a little too frequently (even though they rarely win or have any power outside of useful headlines in the political media coverage) when in the past they&amp;#x27;d stay the fringe and get zero news coverage or attention, which would otherwise increase their standing and help with recruitment to turn otherwise fringe crazies into groups the media presents with seriousness and legitimacy - because they find it useful to attach it to more mainstream and moderate voters. Which I think is a dangerous game to play and one we&amp;#x27;ve already seen the consequences of.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s far easier for the baddies to recruit and be real threads when the media and other influential  people connect them to the real power players in Washington who&amp;#x27;ve never heard of them and would want nothing to do with them.</text></item><item><author>snowedin</author><text>I think you have a very good point.&lt;p&gt;The overall metapoint that both you and the parent comment agree on is this: the internet isn&amp;#x27;t being &amp;quot;weaponized by authoritarian states&amp;quot; in some unique fashion specific to authoritarianism.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d just round it all up to say that: like most headlines about global trends in America, this headline reenforces the meme of &amp;quot;American Exceptionalism&amp;quot; and casts the situation in a &amp;quot;good versus evil&amp;quot; narrative format that&amp;#x27;s not really helpful for understanding what&amp;#x27;s happening or what to do about it. But that itself isn&amp;#x27;t anything particularly new in itself either (queue last three decades of American headlines).</text></item><item><author>anigbrowl</author><text>&lt;i&gt;To wit what comprises &amp;quot;hate speech&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s a rather specious argument when you have the current example of a democracy (India) simply shutting down large parts of the internet for political reasons, not to mention the widespread deployment of surveillance tech in numerous developed countries.&lt;p&gt;This isn&amp;#x27;t to say that you don&amp;#x27;t have a point, but if you&amp;#x27;re saying it&amp;#x27;s a more pressing issue than those you might be suffering from a loss of perspective. After all, &amp;#x27;hate speech&amp;#x27; is widely unpopular (as opposed to being a highly popular thing suppressed by authoritarian states, and much &amp;#x27;hate speech&amp;#x27; treats of the desire to operate an authoritarian state that will restrict or outright terminate the freedoms&amp;#x2F;lives of the hated subjects.</text></item><item><author>mc32</author><text>&amp;gt;&amp;quot;But the extraordinary case draws attention to how dictatorships are increasingly using technology to crush online dissent.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Yes, authoritarian regimes control communication.  That&amp;#x27;s been the case for over a century of radio and mass circulation dailies.  It&amp;#x27;s nothing new.&lt;p&gt;What is new is that even democratic countries are controlling free speech via speech laws or often the private companies engaging in evaluating what&amp;#x27;s permissible speech and not above and beyond what laws require.  To wit what comprises &amp;quot;hate speech&amp;quot;.  It&amp;#x27;s basically come to mean &amp;quot;point of view in disagreement with my group&amp;#x27;s current position which may change in the future&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Authoritarian nations are turning the internet into a weapon</title><url>https://onezero.medium.com/authoritarian-nations-are-turning-the-internet-into-a-weapon-10119d4e9992</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Mirioron</author><text>I&amp;#x27;d like to add to what you&amp;#x27;re saying: the religious right of the 2000s and earlier is what some of the left wing looks like today. Instead of religion they have some form of social justice.</text><parent_chain><item><author>dmix</author><text>Every Republican nominee and political organization has been compared to fascists and Hitler since the early 1950s.&lt;p&gt;It long ago lost its punch yet it&amp;#x27;s still the go-to for every leftwing political ideologue like it will be taken seriously.&lt;p&gt;I agree that this same stuff has been going on forever but I&amp;#x27;ve noticed a significant decline in tolerance by the left of even engaging and debating those on the right. The positions of ivory tower righteous we-know-best reputation which the left has always been known for has gone into overdrive - mostly on social media but it&amp;#x27;s leaking into reputable papers like NYT and less reputable ones in terms of neutrality like WaPo. Plus the crazy radical stuff coming out of places like Teen Vogue are also quite new.&lt;p&gt;Crossing lines has always been a critical political necessity as so much of politics is built on compromise. But at least culturally the hysteria and FUD being stirred up online has completely destroyed any sense of understanding or breaching the other side. Which is turning modern politics into a form of trench warfare.&lt;p&gt;The right have certainly contributed to it by tolerating their crazies a little too frequently (even though they rarely win or have any power outside of useful headlines in the political media coverage) when in the past they&amp;#x27;d stay the fringe and get zero news coverage or attention, which would otherwise increase their standing and help with recruitment to turn otherwise fringe crazies into groups the media presents with seriousness and legitimacy - because they find it useful to attach it to more mainstream and moderate voters. Which I think is a dangerous game to play and one we&amp;#x27;ve already seen the consequences of.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s far easier for the baddies to recruit and be real threads when the media and other influential  people connect them to the real power players in Washington who&amp;#x27;ve never heard of them and would want nothing to do with them.</text></item><item><author>snowedin</author><text>I think you have a very good point.&lt;p&gt;The overall metapoint that both you and the parent comment agree on is this: the internet isn&amp;#x27;t being &amp;quot;weaponized by authoritarian states&amp;quot; in some unique fashion specific to authoritarianism.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d just round it all up to say that: like most headlines about global trends in America, this headline reenforces the meme of &amp;quot;American Exceptionalism&amp;quot; and casts the situation in a &amp;quot;good versus evil&amp;quot; narrative format that&amp;#x27;s not really helpful for understanding what&amp;#x27;s happening or what to do about it. But that itself isn&amp;#x27;t anything particularly new in itself either (queue last three decades of American headlines).</text></item><item><author>anigbrowl</author><text>&lt;i&gt;To wit what comprises &amp;quot;hate speech&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s a rather specious argument when you have the current example of a democracy (India) simply shutting down large parts of the internet for political reasons, not to mention the widespread deployment of surveillance tech in numerous developed countries.&lt;p&gt;This isn&amp;#x27;t to say that you don&amp;#x27;t have a point, but if you&amp;#x27;re saying it&amp;#x27;s a more pressing issue than those you might be suffering from a loss of perspective. After all, &amp;#x27;hate speech&amp;#x27; is widely unpopular (as opposed to being a highly popular thing suppressed by authoritarian states, and much &amp;#x27;hate speech&amp;#x27; treats of the desire to operate an authoritarian state that will restrict or outright terminate the freedoms&amp;#x2F;lives of the hated subjects.</text></item><item><author>mc32</author><text>&amp;gt;&amp;quot;But the extraordinary case draws attention to how dictatorships are increasingly using technology to crush online dissent.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Yes, authoritarian regimes control communication.  That&amp;#x27;s been the case for over a century of radio and mass circulation dailies.  It&amp;#x27;s nothing new.&lt;p&gt;What is new is that even democratic countries are controlling free speech via speech laws or often the private companies engaging in evaluating what&amp;#x27;s permissible speech and not above and beyond what laws require.  To wit what comprises &amp;quot;hate speech&amp;quot;.  It&amp;#x27;s basically come to mean &amp;quot;point of view in disagreement with my group&amp;#x27;s current position which may change in the future&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Authoritarian nations are turning the internet into a weapon</title><url>https://onezero.medium.com/authoritarian-nations-are-turning-the-internet-into-a-weapon-10119d4e9992</url></story>