5 ms·

> But there is little of substance in this article. It’s not an exaggeration that the whole article could be summarized by one line: “Haters, like fanboys, are

> But there is little of substance in this article. It’s not an exaggeration that the whole article could be summarized by one line: “Haters, like fanboys, are likely to be obsessive and should be ignored”. The article does have more substance, for example exploring where the hate comes from. Of course, it does not seem relevant to you, because all you see from haters is a bit of flaming on forums. For famous people, this is a big pain point and worth the many words. > And given it’s been reviewed by the following, it seems like they all are so detached from reality that they cannot objectively provide meaningful feedback to the article. These are exactly the people having the problem! It's like calling someone to black to talk about discrimination against black people. This is very much a problem only these people get to feel the full extent of.

abhinav22 5y ago
> The article does have more substance, for example exploring where the hate comes from. Of course, it does not seem relevant to you, because all you see from haters is a bit of flaming on forums. For famous people, this is a big pain point and worth the many words. Actually you are right. It does cover off a bit on the source, and I brushed these points off as “common knowledge”, probably because I’m not affected by it so I assimilated that information when reading the article without attributing more value to it. I still think it’s devoid of meaningful information, but that’s just a personal view on it, I can now further appreciate that it’s not a decisive “this is a bad article” to “others may take a different view on it”.
II2II 5y ago
> The article does have more substance, for example exploring where the hate comes from. This is where the article lacks substance. It is mostly conjecture based upon attributed motivations. The article would have been much better, in my opinion, if it stuck to noting the similarities between fanboys and haters, noting why haters don't really matter, and making suggestions on the handling of haters.

abhinav22 5y ago

> The article does have more substance, for example exploring where the hate comes from. Of course, it does not seem relevant to you, because all you see from haters is a bit of flaming on forums. For famous people, this is a big pain point and worth the many words. Actually you are right. It does cover off a bit on the source, and I brushed these points off as “common knowledge”, probably because I’m not affected by it so I assimilated that information when reading the article without attributing more value to it. I still think it’s devoid of meaningful information, but that’s just a personal view on it, I can now further appreciate that it’s not a decisive “this is a bad article” to “others may take a different view on it”.

II2II 5y ago

> The article does have more substance, for example exploring where the hate comes from. This is where the article lacks substance. It is mostly conjecture based upon attributed motivations. The article would have been much better, in my opinion, if it stuck to noting the similarities between fanboys and haters, noting why haters don't really matter, and making suggestions on the handling of haters.