4 ms·

The issue is that it's "shouting into the void". Nobody who can do anything about it is here to read it and heed the feedback, so it's just rage in the HN threa

The issue is that it's "shouting into the void". Nobody who can do anything about it is here to read it and heed the feedback, so it's just rage in the HN thread, making it a less pleasant place for everyone here, but without any benefit. The whole reason for having the exception to that rule, being that the author is active in the thread, is that you can address the feedback to them and they can possibly do something about it. Outside of that, you're better off sending an email or tweet to the company, rather than venting here.

anyfoo 6y ago
But the same applies to many, many other discussions on HN. They may seem like shouting into the void, and then they may either stay that way, or garner enough of a critical mass to reach someone relevant--at a minimum they create discourse in our society. So why single this one out? I understand why the cited rule exists: Broken website formatting or back-button breakage is indeed not interesting to discuss, mainly also because it's a nuisance problem with one specific site, and therefore indeed rather futile to discuss without the maintainer of the site actually present. But this issue here is not just a nuisance problem of a broken website, it's an intentional choice by Ubuntu to apply unnecessary tracking to readers of their blog articles, and top it up with some dark patterns to coax their reads into accepting that. It's both something with much more intent than a broken website, and a systemic issue in our industry.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  The site’s guiding principle is “intellectual curiosity”. That’s why Dang “singles out” your comment (which he’s not really doing, he often pulls people up for off-topic rage commenting). > But the same applies to many, many other discussions on HN You’re conflating your style of comment with posted articles, where the author explores a topic, discusses it in depth and proposes a solution. And sure, sometimes those kinds of articles convey some anger or stir some in the reader. But they still have to gratify intellectual curiosity to be considered good HN content. Why don’t you try writing an article like that?
  - anyfoo 6y ago
    It wasn't my comment, it was someone else's comment. I just disagree with this decision in particular, for the stated reasons, which also elaborate on why I think this would have been a valuable topic of discussion. dang can choose to incorporate that (e.g. if indication is that others feel the same), or ignore it.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

anyfoo 6y ago

But the same applies to many, many other discussions on HN. They may seem like shouting into the void, and then they may either stay that way, or garner enough of a critical mass to reach someone relevant--at a minimum they create discourse in our society. So why single this one out? I understand why the cited rule exists: Broken website formatting or back-button breakage is indeed not interesting to discuss, mainly also because it's a nuisance problem with one specific site, and therefore indeed rather futile to discuss without the maintainer of the site actually present. But this issue here is not just a nuisance problem of a broken website, it's an intentional choice by Ubuntu to apply unnecessary tracking to readers of their blog articles, and top it up with some dark patterns to coax their reads into accepting that. It's both something with much more intent than a broken website, and a systemic issue in our industry.

tomhoward 6y ago
The site’s guiding principle is “intellectual curiosity”. That’s why Dang “singles out” your comment (which he’s not really doing, he often pulls people up for off-topic rage commenting). > But the same applies to many, many other discussions on HN You’re conflating your style of comment with posted articles, where the author explores a topic, discusses it in depth and proposes a solution. And sure, sometimes those kinds of articles convey some anger or stir some in the reader. But they still have to gratify intellectual curiosity to be considered good HN content. Why don’t you try writing an article like that?
- anyfoo 6y ago
  It wasn't my comment, it was someone else's comment. I just disagree with this decision in particular, for the stated reasons, which also elaborate on why I think this would have been a valuable topic of discussion. dang can choose to incorporate that (e.g. if indication is that others feel the same), or ignore it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]