3 ms·

I think this is just one example of the continued erosion of private space. We see innocuous examples in social media platforms where day to day life becomes pe

by jlos 5y ago

I think this is just one example of the continued erosion of private space. We see innocuous examples in social media platforms where day to day life becomes performance, pornography where the intimate becomes a public display, twitter where otherwise passing thoughts become matters of public record, and now where private financial support of political causes can be openly used against someone.

irthomasthomas 5y ago
- dang 5y ago
  Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing that repeatedly, and we ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Also, please make sure you're not using the site primarily for ideological battle, because we ban accounts that do that as well. This is not the same rule as the above—it's an additional one. For more explanation, see these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bimodal%20battle&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - irthomasthomas 5y ago
    That is fine. Can you define "ideological flamewar comments", because I honestly did not expect that quoting the WEF verbatim would count. Yes, it is contoversial, and perhaps posting that single sentance triggers your flamewar notice, but I always consider my comments carefuly and my goal is always to inform, not inflame. I think that most people would be interested in the fact that the WEF is working toward a world where we have no property and no privacy. And I am keen to hear what my HN colleagues think about that. Can you also please let me know which of my previously comments you consider flamewar? That way I can adapt my writing to better fit. Thank you.
    - dang 5y ago
      It's a flamewar trope strongly associated with one side in an ideological battle. That's already enough. Also, talking points like that get repeated a lot, which means they have zero curiosity value (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). We want curious conversation here.
      - irthomasthomas 5y ago
        Thank you, I was not aware of that. I don't use any other social media, and I didn't learn until recently that the WEF want to eliminate privacy. I guess I am late, and missed the opportunity to discuss that . You mentioned that I had done this repeatedly, can you let me know some of the other offending comments please. Otherwise how can I know how to adapt?

by jlos 5y ago

irthomasthomas 5y ago

dang 5y ago
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing that repeatedly, and we ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Also, please make sure you're not using the site primarily for ideological battle, because we ban accounts that do that as well. This is not the same rule as the above—it's an additional one. For more explanation, see these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bimodal%20battle&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  That is fine. Can you define "ideological flamewar comments", because I honestly did not expect that quoting the WEF verbatim would count. Yes, it is contoversial, and perhaps posting that single sentance triggers your flamewar notice, but I always consider my comments carefuly and my goal is always to inform, not inflame. I think that most people would be interested in the fact that the WEF is working toward a world where we have no property and no privacy. And I am keen to hear what my HN colleagues think about that. Can you also please let me know which of my previously comments you consider flamewar? That way I can adapt my writing to better fit. Thank you.
  - dang 5y ago
    It's a flamewar trope strongly associated with one side in an ideological battle. That's already enough. Also, talking points like that get repeated a lot, which means they have zero curiosity value (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). We want curious conversation here.
    - irthomasthomas 5y ago
      Thank you, I was not aware of that. I don't use any other social media, and I didn't learn until recently that the WEF want to eliminate privacy. I guess I am late, and missed the opportunity to discuss that . You mentioned that I had done this repeatedly, can you let me know some of the other offending comments please. Otherwise how can I know how to adapt?