Taking your estimate as a superlative, it would be asinine for the community here to censor AI-targeted discussions in the way I think you'd like to. The same goes for a programming community that censors discussions about LLM programming.
You are basically asking for a brain drain in a field that—like it or not—is going to be crucial in the future in spite of its obvious warts and poor implementation in the present. If that's what you want, be my guest and encourage it; but who's authorized to unilaterally make that decision in a given forum?
In the present case, the moderators for r/programming are. But they're making a mistake by marginalizing the technology that's redefining the practice because people talk about it too much instead of thinking about how to effectively talk about it and then steering the community in that direction.
But that's a full-time job. Which is why I think HN may turn out alright in the long run or a similar community will replace it if it fails to temper the change in the industry.
What this decisions signals to me is that r/programming has been inert for some time. I'm sure plenty of programmers, irrespective of their position on AI, probably find the community rejoicing in their resignation to the technologies influence as their cue to finally exit.
Look, after lurking through that submission about the Olympics a few days ago I get HN is divided on sex/gender identity, but I'm pretty sure that Joseph Biden is absolutely a man. "Cisgender", if you must.
I think that a lot of people are going to get ATProto whether they want to or not. I don't want to believe that anyone involved with it at in a decision-making or policy-driving capacity is a big enough loser to only want better social media out of it. Decentralized web apps are a proof of concept.
fyi, Bain Capital (private equity) now has a say in where things go. Technically since April of last year, but we are now just finding out because they withheld their $100M "funding"
> Do these posts just get upvoted due to the graphics/animations?
I don't think so. It's more likely that they're upvoted as a signal-boost; convene here to talk about bad government tech.
Some submissions are less about the subject matter than they are about providing a space to talk about only the subject in general. I've found this to be the case when the content is AI-generated.
That may be true in some cases, but I disagree about that in this case. TFA links to numerous sources for it's data (e.g. https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/723186/ for the White House app, and AFAICT exodus privacy is a legit service), and discussions around government applications that are loaded with surveillance tech (and in many cases it seems like the apps' primary, and sometimes only, purpose is data harvesting) seem very on-topic for HN.
Also, FWIW, while I found the layout of the top section of the article to be weird, the actual text body and linked sources were easy to read for me.
I was referring to the graphics/animations that the GP comment mentioned. I was more confident that those were AI-generated than the actual text. Upon further scrutiny I'm having second thoughts.
There are multiple cases of inconsistencies between certain claims and the sources that they linked to:
> The acting IRS Commissioner, Melanie Krause, resigned in protest.
> DHS's own internal documents admit Mobile Fortify can be used to amass biographical information of "individuals regardless of citizenship or immigration status", and CBP confirmed it will "retain all photographs" including those of U.S. citizens, for 15 years.
> ICE Homeland Security Investigations signed a $9.2 million contract with Clearview AI in September 2025, giving agents access to over 50 billion facial images scraped from the internet.
If I really wanted to force the claim that the body text is AI-generated (or assisted) then I'd guess that the LLM (likely Claude) counted the "dangerous" icon from its appearance in "The icon [Red exclamation mark] indicates a 'Dangerous' or 'Special' level according to Google's protection levels."
> And the whole CBP ecosystem, from CBP One to CBP Home to Mobile Passport Control, feeds data into a network that retains your faceprints for up to 75 years and shares it across DHS, ICE, and the FBI.
This makes it appear that there are separate apps running concurrently, namely CBP One and CBP Home. They aren't. From the linked source, "CBP One is no longer available". It was replaced with CBP Home. The source does not mention Mobile Passport Control.: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/cbp-on...
> ...discussions around government applications that are loaded with surveillance tech (and in many cases it seems like the apps' primary, and sometimes only, purpose is data harvesting) seem very on-topic for HN.
Which is exactly why I said: "Some submissions are less about the subject matter than they are about providing a space to talk about only the subject in general."
The article in its entirety reads more like a desperate attempt at spinning the recent release of the "White House app" into a story about state surveillance. The problem is that it doesn't have a cogent conclusion or point to make except for a "Surveillance Data Pipeline" graphic that depicts ICE as the central destination for all of this data and the following:
> The federal government publishes content available through standard web protocols and RSS feeds, then wraps that content in applications that demand access to your location, biometrics, storage, contacts, and device identity. They embed advertising trackers in FBI apps. They sell the line that you need their app to receive their propaganda while the app quietly collects data that flows into the same surveillance pipeline feeding ICE raids and warrantless location tracking. Every single one of these apps could be replaced by a web page, and they know that. The app exists because a web page can't read your fingerprint, track your GPS in the background, or inventory the other accounts on your device.
>
> You don't need their app. You don't need their permission to access public information. You already have a browser, an RSS reader, and the ability to decide for yourself what runs on your own hardware. Use them.
What is the link between the two? Who is the "You" being addressed here? We have apps that are apparently used only by ICE, apps meant for foreign travelers into the US, apps only someone's conservative/veteran grandfather would be caught using—these are disparate demographics to me.
If my initial impression to all of this information was "So what?" how would this article convince me that it's actually meaningful? Submissions like this aren't about discussing anything novel or critical about the subject matter (with the exception of the Huawei thing which is a missed opportunity from an editorial point of view). They are signal boosts to talk about bad government and technology in general.
I've spent enough of my morning trying to make actual sense of this story, that's not to say that it's not informative (albeit unsurprising), but the quality of the writing irrespective of whether its "readable" makes me question if the submission was popular because of its substance or because it's supposed to be a proxy for r/politics.
I'm confident this phenomenon exists in other industries too.
Is there a term that's equivalent to "reactionary" but applies to leftist/liberal ideals or is it fine for me to start referring to this kind of writing as "reactionary" save that I apply some sort of qualifier like "leftist" or "liberal" before or afterwards?
It feels like the only reason to label one side of the political spectrum "reactionary" in this way is to poison the well for anyone responding to you.
Where as, pre-labeling things as being politically one-sided is very reactionary, and seems to be what you're doing here. It's also not limited to just one side of the political spectrum. I would argue that Conservatives tend to be even more reactionary than liberals. See: All the legislation to prevent children from eating from dog/cat bowls in schools when there's no evidence of this occurring.
I believe that the standard word for this is "radical", but standard use is sloppy enough that it's reasonable to seek a clearer term. I also think that "knee-jerk" may capture the quick reflexive nature you're thinking of.
I fail to see any connections between this piece and Reaction, even tenuous ones.
Also, what would define a "leftist reactionary" anyway? An opposition to social conservatism? That's already the left's stance.
> is it fine for me to start referring to this kind of writing as "reactionary"
I really don't understand what's wrong with asking journalists to do their damn jobs and spend even a tiny amount of time checking the validity of what the people they're quoting are saying. Don't remove their statement, just point at the various potential ways they're misleading/wrong.
Journalists better start doing this basic part of their job again lest you want to be ruled by shameless incompetent buffoons that go unchallenged. Oh wait...
Raymond Williams in Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society:
Reactionary has become difficult because it can mean (i) opposed to reforms;
(ii) wishing to go back to some previous condition; (iii) by application, support-
ing a particular (right-wing) version of society. There are few difficulties when
all impulses to change (actions) are from the Left, and all resistance (reactions)
from the Right. But if, for example, a capitalist party is in an innovating phase, or
if a fascist party is proposing a new social order, each side can call the other reac-
tionary: (i) because capitalism and fascism are right-wing, reactionary, as such;
(ii) because resistance to particular kinds of change, and especially changes and
innovations in capitalism and capitalist society, is seen as reactionary (wishing to
preserve or restore some other condition). Thus we can be invited to identify the
reactionary Right (usually with a sense of the extreme Right, as distinguished
from progressive or reforming conservatives, as well as from Liberals and the Left)
but often, also, the reactionary Left (opposing types of change which they see as
for the worse, or relying on particular senses of the democratic or socialist tradi-
tion which they oppose to current changes of a different kind).
I don't know if this helps but there's a precedent!
We pray to gods and make sacrifices to them but generally do not interact with them directly. It seems to fit squarely in the definition of parasocial.
Another option might be that Nth pass LLM output is not as good as (N+5 months)th pass LLM output. At some point before the amount of effort involved reaches that required to do it oneself, the output will reach an acceptable quality level... or so you'd hope, if any of this business is to make any sense.
You are basically asking for a brain drain in a field that—like it or not—is going to be crucial in the future in spite of its obvious warts and poor implementation in the present. If that's what you want, be my guest and encourage it; but who's authorized to unilaterally make that decision in a given forum?
In the present case, the moderators for r/programming are. But they're making a mistake by marginalizing the technology that's redefining the practice because people talk about it too much instead of thinking about how to effectively talk about it and then steering the community in that direction.
But that's a full-time job. Which is why I think HN may turn out alright in the long run or a similar community will replace it if it fails to temper the change in the industry.
What this decisions signals to me is that r/programming has been inert for some time. I'm sure plenty of programmers, irrespective of their position on AI, probably find the community rejoicing in their resignation to the technologies influence as their cue to finally exit.
reply