3 ms·

> Single purpose accounts aren't allowed here What's wrong with that? Some users really like to talk a lot about Java [1] and I am mainly interested in talking

> Single purpose accounts aren't allowed here What's wrong with that? Some users really like to talk a lot about Java [1] and I am mainly interested in talking about the ongoing pandemic. HN offers a great format to have balanced discussions with a technical/science-oriented community. Additionally, it doesn't seem like COVID-19 topics are spamming/dominating the main page. > and neither is using HN primarily for ideological battle I started the thread to find out more about the current situation. One user replied with an article against vaccines. I tried to offer more context (i.e. defending the vaccines). In a different thread [2], a user underestimated the risks of vaccinating children and, again, I tried to balance it out (i.e. criticizing the vaccines). And sometimes, I just like to add a comment to confront the absurdities of today's governance [3]. Where am I primarily engaging in ideological battle? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Skinney https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Skinney (Just a random user) [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29111492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29111492 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29275781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29275781

dang 5y ago
What's wrong with that is that such accounts are invariably agenda-driven rather than curiosity-driven, and that destroys what the site is supposed to be for. Curiosity meanders in unpredictable directions, so there's basically zero overlap here.
- charbonneau2 5y ago
  IMO, it's unfortunate that you see my comments/threads as invariably destructive & agenda-driven, essentially putting them on a level with this [1] (although that user wasn't banned). I'd be glad to continue the discussions about the pandemic. Your site, your decision. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328994
  - dang 5y ago
    You can't get meaningful signal out of pointing to one bad comment like that. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=likeliest%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I've responded now. Bad as that comment was, it's clear from the account history that there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for. I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that. Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated. People do that all the time, of course, but it tends to be a signal that they don't really care about the values of the site.
    - charbonneau2 5y ago
      > I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that [...] Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated. I pointed at a single comment in the same tree to better understand your reasoning for the ban (You cannot see each comment, that's obviously unrealistic. Still, I assumed that you at least reviewed the tree). > there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for How I recently used HN (last 5 comments): - Provided missing context to unfounded vaccine skepticism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328687 - Asked for more information/reasoning behind vaccine skepticism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328216 - Expanded vaccine skeptical comment without judgement - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322045 - Added statements from original study author to put unfounded vaccine skepticism into perspective - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29316229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29316229 - Tried to put hospitalizations into perspective, citing CDC study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29299661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29299661 You say my account is agenda-driven. What's my agenda? Where am I fighting an ideological battle? Am I pro- or anti-vaccine? Maybe both? Or maybe I am just trying to have "curious conversations" on a topic I'm currently most curious about. To get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. If that's not OK because it's too focused on one topic and therefore not curious enough, well then I accept the ban.

dang 5y ago

What's wrong with that is that such accounts are invariably agenda-driven rather than curiosity-driven, and that destroys what the site is supposed to be for. Curiosity meanders in unpredictable directions, so there's basically zero overlap here.

charbonneau2 5y ago
IMO, it's unfortunate that you see my comments/threads as invariably destructive & agenda-driven, essentially putting them on a level with this [1] (although that user wasn't banned). I'd be glad to continue the discussions about the pandemic. Your site, your decision. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328994
- dang 5y ago
  You can't get meaningful signal out of pointing to one bad comment like that. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=likeliest%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I've responded now. Bad as that comment was, it's clear from the account history that there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for. I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that. Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated. People do that all the time, of course, but it tends to be a signal that they don't really care about the values of the site.
  - charbonneau2 5y ago
    > I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that [...] Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated. I pointed at a single comment in the same tree to better understand your reasoning for the ban (You cannot see each comment, that's obviously unrealistic. Still, I assumed that you at least reviewed the tree). > there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for How I recently used HN (last 5 comments): - Provided missing context to unfounded vaccine skepticism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328687 - Asked for more information/reasoning behind vaccine skepticism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328216 - Expanded vaccine skeptical comment without judgement - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322045 - Added statements from original study author to put unfounded vaccine skepticism into perspective - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29316229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29316229 - Tried to put hospitalizations into perspective, citing CDC study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29299661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29299661 You say my account is agenda-driven. What's my agenda? Where am I fighting an ideological battle? Am I pro- or anti-vaccine? Maybe both? Or maybe I am just trying to have "curious conversations" on a topic I'm currently most curious about. To get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. If that's not OK because it's too focused on one topic and therefore not curious enough, well then I accept the ban.