4 ms·

Ah, ok. So an article about a specific incident or a specific, small subsidiary would work?

dang 6y ago
A specific incident, yes. Whether it's a small subsidiary or not probably is a red herring, unless there's something unexpected about that small subsidiary being involved in such a thing. Really, though, this is just about avoiding repetition. The first principle of HN is curiosity. Everything else follows from that (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20optimiz&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Curiosity withers under repetition (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20repetition&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). Generic discussions are bad because they're repetitive. There's a close relationship between genericness and repetition: generic is what you get when you take a bunch of things that have been seen and heard before, and blend them in a blender. When a topic has been repeated enough to become generic, SNI is our only friend (see link upthread). That's basically the same as your specific incident. By the way, these specific incidents quickly become generic in their own right. An ongoing example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23213213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23213213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232115 (those are just the ones with significant comments that I happen to know about) Edit - by the way, it has taken years to hammer out these principles to the point that they've become building blocks of moderation that can be linked to and expressed in clear, concrete ways. I think it's probably time to collect this material into a more orderly form.
- billme 6y ago
  For what it’s worth, me posting like to the Wikipedia page was the result of a random Google search trying to find examples of new Google SERP features; Google search being... [new message in Google search -"support.google.com"] ...with results limited to the past 24-hours. I had not even heard of the YouTube issue and was honestly surprised how much information was on wiki’s about Google censorship. All that said, lol, didn’t have an issue with your reasoning, and when I saw how fast the post was climbing wasn’t shocked to see it fall just as fast as it happens all the time and you’d pinned your comment too.

dang 6y ago

A specific incident, yes. Whether it's a small subsidiary or not probably is a red herring, unless there's something unexpected about that small subsidiary being involved in such a thing. Really, though, this is just about avoiding repetition. The first principle of HN is curiosity. Everything else follows from that (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20optimiz&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Curiosity withers under repetition (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20repetition&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). Generic discussions are bad because they're repetitive. There's a close relationship between genericness and repetition: generic is what you get when you take a bunch of things that have been seen and heard before, and blend them in a blender. When a topic has been repeated enough to become generic, SNI is our only friend (see link upthread). That's basically the same as your specific incident. By the way, these specific incidents quickly become generic in their own right. An ongoing example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23213213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23213213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232115 (those are just the ones with significant comments that I happen to know about) Edit - by the way, it has taken years to hammer out these principles to the point that they've become building blocks of moderation that can be linked to and expressed in clear, concrete ways. I think it's probably time to collect this material into a more orderly form.

billme 6y ago
For what it’s worth, me posting like to the Wikipedia page was the result of a random Google search trying to find examples of new Google SERP features; Google search being... [new message in Google search -"support.google.com"] ...with results limited to the past 24-hours. I had not even heard of the YouTube issue and was honestly surprised how much information was on wiki’s about Google censorship. All that said, lol, didn’t have an issue with your reasoning, and when I saw how fast the post was climbing wasn’t shocked to see it fall just as fast as it happens all the time and you’d pinned your comment too.