I'm sorry - you're saying that having a public opinion on another person's opinion is against the plurality of opinion?

I didn't read it that way (but I can see multiple possible readings).

Here's my interpretation: When someone has a shitty public opionion, we force others to MAKE PUBLIC their opinions.

And because our society is so polarized, we don't talk about opinions or their nuances; we reduce them to binary views (it's possible they are but not always), we pick a side and we light our torches.

> we pick a side and we light our torches

Some people do that, yes, but I'd argue most simply don't care enough.

Then why does this thread have 1800 comments when most HN threads have a small fraction of that? Half of them are just people virtue signaling that they're no longer paying for this VPN service.

Since davidee mentioned society, I assumed we were speaking in general and not relative to HN.

This thread reads as an example of anything BUT plurality of opinion -- most of the people here never in their lives considered that the country in question has political discourse at all, and what's going on in there politically, so no opinion was ever present.

Furthermore, consider that the opinion-like discourse is clearly performative. We all know what the correct virtue signaling looks like, and we know that we need to ruin every person not doing the correct virtue signaling.

So it's less of a plurality-of-opinion situation, and more of a direct-democracy situation: a lynch mob.

(Not saying it's good or bad btw -- not my circus, not my monkeys. Just dishonest to say we love some sort of plurality while doing this I think.)

To be fair there are also many examples in this thread of courteous, empathetic and intellectual discourse, where people agree to disagree.

Relatively speaking HN is an oasis compared to other platforms. Which makes me wonder, are there forums with an even higher quality than HN?

That's an interesting idea, and not one I have seen implemented yet.

I think the biggest hurdle for something like that would be selecting and keeping enough like-minded moderators to enforce the quality.

Depends on what you call quality. Not sure if eloquent people defending repugnant politics and views = high quality

Largely offline and informal.

That's... Not really what is happening here.

The guy who made the donation is entitled to his opinions. No one is questioning his right to make a donation.

People are, however, that by paying for the services of a company he owns, they are as a second order effect financing politics they find repugnant.

No, it's not everyone and it's always been this way. Nobody really cares about the opinion of random strangers.

People care about the opinions of those they're invested in (emotionally, politically, financially, etc.) and it's those opinions they want to know. People want to associate with those who share their values. It has always been this way.