3 ms·

> which, sadly, is hard to discuss openly Why is this?

• chrisweekly 6y ago
  Because discussing the moderation system is strongly discouraged and leads to downvotes.
  • tptacek 6y ago
    No, that's not it; it's because anti-abuse is a cat-and-mouse game, so while you can discuss it (in an appropriate setting like a junky meta thread you didn't start), you can't expect HN to be forthcoming with details, because those details lower costs for abusers, and maximizing costs is the whole ballgame. Kibitzing HN moderation itself is one of our oldest pastimes.
    • danimal88 6y ago
      Its funny because the most hardcore in open source and security would argue that good techniques don't rely on obfuscation and secrets because those cats can get out of the bag. Never purrsonally subscribed to those as I agree with the cat and mouse perspective. Information assymetry is effective.
      • tptacek 6y ago
        People in security who say that categorically are betraying ignorance, because there are several "hardcore" settings in software security where the same dynamic --- attacker/defender cost competition occurring by degrees --- plays out. Anti-ATO, content protection, botnets, anti-DDOS, hardware platform security, just to rattle a few off my head. The correct security objection is to obfuscation being deployed in settings where there are decisively effective controls that could be deployed instead: where it doesn't make sense to raise attacker costs by degrees, because those costs can be raised to intractable levels instead. I'd cite an example, but it would spawn a 500 comment thread about how Linux sysadmins manage their networks.