4 ms·

Linking to a user's previous comment on this very website is "bringing in extraneous personal details"? I don't see how the fact that someone works at Amazon, w

Linking to a user's previous comment on this very website is "bringing in extraneous personal details"? I don't see how the fact that someone works at Amazon, when talking about Amazon products, is extraneous. It is very relevant to the discussion. Prior to my edit, the user posted a comment claiming that they didn't work there, which was a lie, and yet they were deceptively still promoting Amazon products. That fits the very definition of astroturfing. Believe me, I don't want to discourage good, informative comments either, and I tried to be polite when calling the user out, but this was a pretty clear cut case of astroturfing. Even if not having nefarious intent, it's still contributing to HN being a big billboard ad for AWS.

dang 8y ago
Yes, that really is bringing in extraneous personal details and it is a step into harassment. Most people's personal info is scattered over the internet, including on HN. If you go looking, you can dig things up on almost anyone. Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an argument is a breach of HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. HN has lots of employees who work for tech companies, and if they know about something, it's good for HN if they share the knowledge. The commenter was merely expressing a personal preference for one technology over another.
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  The definition of "extraneous" is "irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with". The user was talking about Amazon. How can the fact that they work at Amazon be irrelevant or unrelated? > Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an argument is a breach of civility. Is it, though? I'm just thinking of applying that same argument to other situations in life and I don't know if it works. Is it a "breach of civility" for employers to look at your past work experience before hiring you? Is it a "breach of civility" for voters to consider the past political record of candidates when evaluating them for office? I would argue that bringing in historical information from a user's past discussions is not "bringing those back into a different context", it is enhancing the current context. Mentioning that a user works at a company, while in a discussion about that company, is providing additional useful context to that discussion. > I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. We can agree to disagree then, I suppose. The definition of astroturfing is "the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants." Again, that fits, to a tee, what the user was doing. He attempted to mask the sponsor of the message by lying about not working for Amazon. I'll agree with you that I shouldn't have called him out in a comment. I put it in a comment because I wanted to give him a chance to edit his comment rather than his whole comment being hidden/removed (since his comment did provide good info), but perhaps should have just flagged it or emailed you instead. This interaction doesn't give me much faith that anything would be done about it, though.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The most valuable attribute of HN this week has been discussions with Amazon people about services announced at reInvent. It's surprising to me that anyone would think to complain about that happening.
    - txcwpalpha 8y ago
      Does that not reinforce the idea that the fact that those aforementioned people work at Amazon is very relevant?
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Not to me? People can mention it if they want. All I care about is that people have firsthand knowledge of these services. I don't care much how they got that knowledge.
        txcwpalpha 8y ago
        In the comment just prior to this you said the most valuable part of HN was "Amazon people". Now you're saying it's irrelevant to you if they are "Amazon people" or not? I guess I'm very confused at what you're trying to say.
        wolf550e 8y ago
        Replace "Amazon people" with "people knowledgeable about these services".
  - dang 8y ago
    By 'extraneous' I mean bringing something in from another context. When people do that with someone's personal details in an argument, that escalates the confrontation greatly, whether the detail is relevant or not. I think what you're missing is that the dynamics of an internet forum are quite fragile, and call for special rules if the forum isn't to degenerate completely. It's not the same as other situations in life.

dang 8y ago

Yes, that really is bringing in extraneous personal details and it is a step into harassment. Most people's personal info is scattered over the internet, including on HN. If you go looking, you can dig things up on almost anyone. Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an argument is a breach of HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. HN has lots of employees who work for tech companies, and if they know about something, it's good for HN if they share the knowledge. The commenter was merely expressing a personal preference for one technology over another.

txcwpalpha 8y ago
The definition of "extraneous" is "irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with". The user was talking about Amazon. How can the fact that they work at Amazon be irrelevant or unrelated? > Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an argument is a breach of civility. Is it, though? I'm just thinking of applying that same argument to other situations in life and I don't know if it works. Is it a "breach of civility" for employers to look at your past work experience before hiring you? Is it a "breach of civility" for voters to consider the past political record of candidates when evaluating them for office? I would argue that bringing in historical information from a user's past discussions is not "bringing those back into a different context", it is enhancing the current context. Mentioning that a user works at a company, while in a discussion about that company, is providing additional useful context to that discussion. > I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. We can agree to disagree then, I suppose. The definition of astroturfing is "the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants." Again, that fits, to a tee, what the user was doing. He attempted to mask the sponsor of the message by lying about not working for Amazon. I'll agree with you that I shouldn't have called him out in a comment. I put it in a comment because I wanted to give him a chance to edit his comment rather than his whole comment being hidden/removed (since his comment did provide good info), but perhaps should have just flagged it or emailed you instead. This interaction doesn't give me much faith that anything would be done about it, though.
- tptacek 8y ago
  The most valuable attribute of HN this week has been discussions with Amazon people about services announced at reInvent. It's surprising to me that anyone would think to complain about that happening.
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    Does that not reinforce the idea that the fact that those aforementioned people work at Amazon is very relevant?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Not to me? People can mention it if they want. All I care about is that people have firsthand knowledge of these services. I don't care much how they got that knowledge.
      - txcwpalpha 8y ago
        In the comment just prior to this you said the most valuable part of HN was "Amazon people". Now you're saying it's irrelevant to you if they are "Amazon people" or not? I guess I'm very confused at what you're trying to say.
        wolf550e 8y ago
        Replace "Amazon people" with "people knowledgeable about these services".
- dang 8y ago
  By 'extraneous' I mean bringing something in from another context. When people do that with someone's personal details in an argument, that escalates the confrontation greatly, whether the detail is relevant or not. I think what you're missing is that the dynamics of an internet forum are quite fragile, and call for special rules if the forum isn't to degenerate completely. It's not the same as other situations in life.