It isn't. Re Dang: straight from your link, "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us someth

It isn't. Re Dang: straight from your link, "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." Personally, I found the comment insightful. I don't have all the time in the world to sit and pick something apart. Make no mistake, the smart tl;dr of HN are what gives HN any kind of value. Without that, may as well just use RSS and Reddit. I'm already subscribed to Moxie, came to HN to see what intelligent people have to say about it given that I am no longer a Signal user, and am anti-cryptocurrency in its current iteration, but pro-decentralization, which makes Moxie quite an interesting choice for me to want to actively follow the thoughts of as we feel differently about many important topics. There is no binary black or white to be established with abstract, complex topics like these. If it was any kind of bait, it was bait to discuss further. That the whole USP of Web3 is supposedly ownership and anti-censorship, and what's happening appears to be opposite is definitely something we should be discussing. What's the point of comments on HN if we can't use them to discuss? It's a commentary on somebody's opinion—with opinions. Perhaps if you don't like opinion pieces then you should simply ban them via these rules? I think HN's content might end up a little thin on the ground in that scenario though. Worth noting is what "guidelines" actually are, they're not rules. If you would like them to be enforced as rules, and expect people to treat them as such, start calling them rules or ToS. But in that case, expect far less interest in HN if you aren't going to permit open discussion. Have a good weekend, Dang. Hope you and yours are healthy and happy.