3 ms·
Your campaign is based on a misconception: the US is not even mentioned in the study or article. If you look at the map, primarily English-speaking countries (U
by tomhoward 7y ago
Your campaign is based on a misconception: the US is not even mentioned in the study or article. If you look at the map, primarily English-speaking countries (UK, US, Australia, NZ) are not colour-coded, as the survey was focused on English proficiency in non-primarily-English-speaking countries.
As for the guidelines, they have been developed and refined over many years, and people who are committed to participating in HN in good faith have no difficulty sticking to them. Dang's 5+ years of moderation precedent can be easily studied here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- herostratus101 7y ago"Campaign" is a loaded word. Anyway, it looks like I misread the map. It would have been far more productive for someone to just point that out, rather than threatening a ban.
- tomhoward 7y agoDang's job is to keep HN aligned with its purpose, which is to be a place for discovering and discussing content that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". That means flamewar sparks and anger-inciting comments about predictably-politically-charged topics simply don't belong. It's a full-time job just doing that; fact-checking is not a service he has time to provide, and factuality doesn't greatly affect whether a comment is outside the guidelines (everyone makes mistakes, there's nothing wrong with that; it's how you express yourself that matters here). It's not even about topics that are controversial; Dang has said many times that controversial topics are fine to be discussed here; they just have to be discussed in a way that gratifies curiosity (i.e., we can learn things from the discussion), rather than stirring up partisan rage.