{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiee325jajsr5ot7azns72yjfurkfqwvxovsvbddi6qvsshvywu6im",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:haakkg7y3xdghcdmprxeexso/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmzleepca4r2"
  },
  "path": "/t/are-we-under-attack/38187#post_18",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-29T21:07:32.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net",
  "tags": [
    "[1]",
    "[2]",
    "(click for more details)",
    "privacy policy",
    "↩︎"
  ],
  "textContent": "Whether or not “we” are being “attacked” does not matter. It’s all speculation and armchair theorizing without testable, falsifiable, scientific investigation.[1] A rise in argumentative behavior and defeatist attitudes is possibly causally explained by a combination of many things. To say that there are people with malevolent intentions who are actively colluding with each other to promote unhelpful discussion on this forum does not help us in any capacity.[2] Why? Because there is nothing _new_ to be done with that information, even if it were true.\n\nFor example, you might say that this information teaches users to stay on high alert for defeatist attitudes and argumentative behaviors, but we don’t _actually_ need to assert a conspiracy for that. Users should already be on high alert. It’s called critical thinking. And there is already an expectation to engage with others with respect. You might also say that this allows maintainers to be on high alert for such attitudes and behaviors, but it’s _already_ a part of their function to filter that out, as well as anything else not helpful for discussion.\n\nTL;DR: I’m all for criticizing argumentative behaviors and defeatist attitudes. I’m also all for fighting against its rise in the forum, because it does indeed derail threads. But I do not need to assert some armchair conspiracy theory that there are people colluding with each other _and_ that this collusion causally accounts for the unfortunate behaviors and attitudes we see on the forum. That requires investigation to confirm. Not only this, but nothing would change were it confirmed. We would still have to act and respond in the same way either way.\n\nIf you are interested enough in logic, we can instead look at this as conditional statements (if X, then Y). Click here to open my analysis. Otherwise, regard this as off-topic. (click for more details)\n\n* * *\n\n  1. … and the only people who can do such an investigation are the people who can collect the relevant data: the Privacy Guides organization. They can probably do an investigation without violating their privacy policy if they are inclined to. ↩︎\n\n  2. In fact, it can be true that there is, as you describe, a conspiracy at hand. But again, without investigation, you cannot say that that conspiracy actually _caused_ the observations you are seeing. ↩︎\n\n  3. … where the X term “conspiracy” refers to the claim that there are people colluding with each other, and where the Y term “observations” refers to the observable rise in defeatist attitudes and argumentative behaviors. ↩︎\n\n\n",
  "title": "Are we under attack?"
}