I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? No one is forcing you to. You choose the debates you want to engage in. The point of HN is for intellectual curiosity - which I would think involves exploring many branches of discussion. It's not about trying to win debates.
> I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic.
You… think it’s unrealistic that two people with no other distinguishing characteristics than letters A & B might make threats and incite others on a social media platform with no limits to their doing so, against another person with no distinguishing characteristic other than the letter C? How can that possibly be good faith?
> Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry?
I’m not even trying to debate anything, I noticed that you moved the goalposts and pointed it out in hopes you’d appreciate the clarification, not that you’d triple down and insist that even a very simple proposition of two people abusing an unmoderated platform should be turned around to scrutinize their targeted victim without any shred of reason to think their target had anything to scrutinize other than your apparent determination to find it.
Don’t you realize that you’re demonstrating exactly the kind of bias I earned about?
