7 ms·

HN should not allow linking to Quilette.

mcherm 6y ago
I'm not in favor of banning ANY particular source. I think it wiser to evaluate any particular article on its own merits.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  Reputation of a publisher is one of the ways you evaluate things.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    Indeed, and would therefore be up to each reader to decide how that reputation factors into their evaluation of what they're reading and the subsequent conversation.
jonstewart 6y ago
+1. It seems to sneak in on the weekends.
zimpenfish 6y ago
Whilst Quilette is a trashfire of snide insinuation and right-wing batloonery, there does seem to be a non-trivial amount of support for their kind of politics on HN (as evidenced by the links and supportive comments). I'd not want them blocked, per se, but I don't know how best to combat the false narratives they tend to spin.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I don’t follow Quillette avidly by any means, but when they crop up here the articles tend to be well argued and well-supported. In this case, the author presents a truckload of verifiable facts—if he’s lying, it would be easy to demonstrate, and it would rightly destroy his (and Quillette’s) credibility. I have no doubt that he’s “spinning” the story a bit, but provided he’s not overtly lying about the verifiable evidence then it’s already damning of the university. Further, there are lots of publications which have egregiously lied about verifiable events and which we still welcome on HN, but I won’t get into that since it would probably only lead to comments which would run afoul of the guidelines.
COGlory 6y ago
Why? My initial impression of Quillette has been quite positive. It gives a voice to people who are otherwise tending to be unheard. Whether or not you believe them is up to you. But at least the website is letting me make that decision for myself.
commandlinefan 6y ago
I appreciate the different perspective.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
voldacar 6y ago
Why? Everything I've seen posted here from Quilette has been well-written and thoughtful.
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
One would hope that the level of discourse on HN is sufficient to deal with incorrect, false, or poorly written stories on its own terms, rather than blanket bans because one disagrees with their politics (or even if only because the publication is considered political, which would call for bans of lots of other sources regardless of political affiliation). It brings the division and toxicity of Twitter here to HN, which it has thusfar avoided, because then the two "sides" would battle it out on which "news" sources to accept. One might equally say "HN should not allow linking to Huffington Post" which I don't honestly know if that is linked to with any frequency but I wouldn't be opposed if it did. It is valuable to know what people are thinking and to see what people are discussing.

I'm not in favor of banning ANY particular source. I think it wiser to evaluate any particular article on its own merits.

cortesoft 6y ago
Reputation of a publisher is one of the ways you evaluate things.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  Indeed, and would therefore be up to each reader to decide how that reputation factors into their evaluation of what they're reading and the subsequent conversation.

jonstewart 6y ago

+1. It seems to sneak in on the weekends.

zimpenfish 6y ago

Whilst Quilette is a trashfire of snide insinuation and right-wing batloonery, there does seem to be a non-trivial amount of support for their kind of politics on HN (as evidenced by the links and supportive comments). I'd not want them blocked, per se, but I don't know how best to combat the false narratives they tend to spin.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I don’t follow Quillette avidly by any means, but when they crop up here the articles tend to be well argued and well-supported. In this case, the author presents a truckload of verifiable facts—if he’s lying, it would be easy to demonstrate, and it would rightly destroy his (and Quillette’s) credibility. I have no doubt that he’s “spinning” the story a bit, but provided he’s not overtly lying about the verifiable evidence then it’s already damning of the university. Further, there are lots of publications which have egregiously lied about verifiable events and which we still welcome on HN, but I won’t get into that since it would probably only lead to comments which would run afoul of the guidelines.

COGlory 6y ago

Why? My initial impression of Quillette has been quite positive. It gives a voice to people who are otherwise tending to be unheard. Whether or not you believe them is up to you. But at least the website is letting me make that decision for myself.

commandlinefan 6y ago

I appreciate the different perspective.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

voldacar 6y ago

Why? Everything I've seen posted here from Quilette has been well-written and thoughtful.

RonanTheGrey 6y ago

One would hope that the level of discourse on HN is sufficient to deal with incorrect, false, or poorly written stories on its own terms, rather than blanket bans because one disagrees with their politics (or even if only because the publication is considered political, which would call for bans of lots of other sources regardless of political affiliation). It brings the division and toxicity of Twitter here to HN, which it has thusfar avoided, because then the two "sides" would battle it out on which "news" sources to accept. One might equally say "HN should not allow linking to Huffington Post" which I don't honestly know if that is linked to with any frequency but I wouldn't be opposed if it did. It is valuable to know what people are thinking and to see what people are discussing.