6 ms·

It's not about "defending a company". That's the wrong way of looking at it. It's about HN not reporting on "..an article, about a blog post, about a random co

It's not about "defending a company". That's the wrong way of looking at it. It's about HN not reporting on "..an article, about a blog post, about a random comment..." as if it's facts. Until otherwise demonstrated, this is a non-story. If it turns out to be true, I'll be the first person to say "yeah, same old same old" but no-one's put the work in yet.

blub 7y ago
The article author tried to contact MS and checked themselves that the files are part of the update. Furthermore, the user Someone1234 has been defending telemetry on HN for years, often ignoring two important facts: * telemetry was invasive and non-transparent, but got toned down because of the backlash. They always refer to the current state and pretend that people are paranoid and exaggerate. * MS used many dark patterns when rolling this out, essentially getting into an arms race with the customers that wanted to disable telemetry.
- VvR-Ox 7y ago
  Thank you very much, now I don't have to answer anymore. Have a good day :)
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't cross into personal attack in comments here. I'm sure you can make your substantive points without that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - blub 7y ago
    Pointing something out about somebody's comment history is not an "attack". There are many HN users which repeatedly defend dark patterns and the nasty practices of companies and then don't reply or ignore counter-arguments. It would seem to me that HN should be more concerned with those situations, than those that point the above out in a rather benign way.
    - dang 7y ago
      > Pointing something out about somebody's comment history is not an "attack". That's certainly true in general. For example, if I post "Hey, I noticed that you've posted a lot about APL. Did you ever work with it professionally?", that's not a personal attack. But the pattern here was more specific than that. If you single someone out by name and insinuate bad faith in their comment history, that pattern-matches closely to the online calling-out and shaming culture. We want to avoid that culture here: its spirit is aggressive, we want HN's spirit to be collegial, and one can't have both. When we post moderation comments like I did above, we're always looking at the effect something has on the site as a whole. The call-out culture is contagious because people are so used to it elsewhere. It's perfectly natural for someone who disagrees with your view to have various comments in their history expressing that. The way to answer this is with better arguments, not by naming and shaming. If you say that your intent wasn't to shame or insinuate, I believe you, but that's only a necessary condition for posting here, not a sufficient one. If your post pattern-matches to a standard way people do that on the internet, then readers will interpret you that way (like I did above) even if you intended otherwise, and the effect on the community will be just as bad. In such cases, the burden is on the commenter to make their benign intent explicit and disambiguate from the default pattern.

blub 7y ago

The article author tried to contact MS and checked themselves that the files are part of the update. Furthermore, the user Someone1234 has been defending telemetry on HN for years, often ignoring two important facts: * telemetry was invasive and non-transparent, but got toned down because of the backlash. They always refer to the current state and pretend that people are paranoid and exaggerate. * MS used many dark patterns when rolling this out, essentially getting into an arms race with the customers that wanted to disable telemetry.

VvR-Ox 7y ago
Thank you very much, now I don't have to answer anymore. Have a good day :)
dang 7y ago
Please don't cross into personal attack in comments here. I'm sure you can make your substantive points without that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- blub 7y ago
  Pointing something out about somebody's comment history is not an "attack". There are many HN users which repeatedly defend dark patterns and the nasty practices of companies and then don't reply or ignore counter-arguments. It would seem to me that HN should be more concerned with those situations, than those that point the above out in a rather benign way.
  - dang 7y ago
    > Pointing something out about somebody's comment history is not an "attack". That's certainly true in general. For example, if I post "Hey, I noticed that you've posted a lot about APL. Did you ever work with it professionally?", that's not a personal attack. But the pattern here was more specific than that. If you single someone out by name and insinuate bad faith in their comment history, that pattern-matches closely to the online calling-out and shaming culture. We want to avoid that culture here: its spirit is aggressive, we want HN's spirit to be collegial, and one can't have both. When we post moderation comments like I did above, we're always looking at the effect something has on the site as a whole. The call-out culture is contagious because people are so used to it elsewhere. It's perfectly natural for someone who disagrees with your view to have various comments in their history expressing that. The way to answer this is with better arguments, not by naming and shaming. If you say that your intent wasn't to shame or insinuate, I believe you, but that's only a necessary condition for posting here, not a sufficient one. If your post pattern-matches to a standard way people do that on the internet, then readers will interpret you that way (like I did above) even if you intended otherwise, and the effect on the community will be just as bad. In such cases, the burden is on the commenter to make their benign intent explicit and disambiguate from the default pattern.