4 ms·

So the OP I replied to should have been the one you censored. That post was ideological. I highlighted it true but that doesn't change anything.

dang 11y ago
I don't agree. The commenter's description of personal experience made it a valuable contribution. It did not come across as primarily ideological, whereas yours did, plus was snarky—a particularly unwanted combination.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  > It's not a question of your comment alone but of the whole subthread. I'm not sure I understand. Did you censor this because of my comment or because of the thread? The bigger issue is shilling...
  - dang 11y ago
    I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question. > The bigger issue is shilling Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email hn@ycombinator.com with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      > I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question. Well it was. I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015. I've further clarified post-censorship https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453441. > Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email hn@ycombinator.com with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it. This is in effect a non-policy. This is pseudonymous forum. Users don't have any evidence other than heuristics (i.e. what the poster actually writes). Given that you don't accept that as evidence they have no possibility to raise serious questions unless there is blaringly obvious mistake on the shill's part. EDIT Would the downvoter like to pitch in and actually contribute?
      - dang 11y ago
        > I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015. I've further clarified post-censorship That's a high word count on "censor", but I'm not sure what else there is to say. > This is in effect a non-policy. It sounds like you've misunderstood. Anyone with suspicions about astroturfing is welcome to email us; it's we who have the data and will look for evidence. What's not allowed is groundless accusation of other users in HN comments.

dang 11y ago

I don't agree. The commenter's description of personal experience made it a valuable contribution. It did not come across as primarily ideological, whereas yours did, plus was snarky—a particularly unwanted combination.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> It's not a question of your comment alone but of the whole subthread. I'm not sure I understand. Did you censor this because of my comment or because of the thread? The bigger issue is shilling...
- dang 11y ago
  I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question. > The bigger issue is shilling Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email hn@ycombinator.com with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    > I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question. Well it was. I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015. I've further clarified post-censorship https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453441. > Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email hn@ycombinator.com with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it. This is in effect a non-policy. This is pseudonymous forum. Users don't have any evidence other than heuristics (i.e. what the poster actually writes). Given that you don't accept that as evidence they have no possibility to raise serious questions unless there is blaringly obvious mistake on the shill's part. EDIT Would the downvoter like to pitch in and actually contribute?
    - dang 11y ago
      > I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015. I've further clarified post-censorship That's a high word count on "censor", but I'm not sure what else there is to say. > This is in effect a non-policy. It sounds like you've misunderstood. Anyone with suspicions about astroturfing is welcome to email us; it's we who have the data and will look for evidence. What's not allowed is groundless accusation of other users in HN comments.