3 ms·

That's a classic! That was already the government propaganda (at least here in France) at the time of Chernobyl, that everything is fine and kids should play ou

That's a classic! That was already the government propaganda (at least here in France) at the time of Chernobyl, that everything is fine and kids should play outside like any other day. The same kind of situation happened 3 years ago in Rouen (France) where a Lubrizol chemical factory burnt down and the government said everything was just fine, before taking emergency measures, before finally saying that everything was fine all along. It was not the first incident with that plant, and the richer people did not wait for the release of the list of chemicals involved in the incident to leave the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubrizol_factory_fire_in_Rouen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubrizol_factory_fire_in_Rouen

luciusdomitius 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Could you please stop posting flamebait comments to HN? It's against the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly. Fortunately your account has also posted good comments, but if you would please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
  - luciusdomitius 4y ago
    May I ask what classifies this comment as flamebait, what the concrete criteria are and some other examples? Thanks P.S. Alright, now I see, that it would be under the "unrelated controversy" clause. Could you explain to me objectively how the parent comment doesn't fall under the same one too? And actually 40-50% of off-topic comments on HN? On top of that it is not completely unrelated either, as it is imo globally the second most prominent example of government miscalculation/cover up, the lack of accountability which followed it, etc.
    - dang 4y ago
      > May I ask what classifies this comment as flamebait Well, for starters, switching to a highly divisive topic that has nothing to do with the original story; jacking up the indignation/inflammation levels; snark; and I suppose also the political reference. > Could you explain to me objectively how the parent comment doesn't fall under the same one too? I don't know about "objectively" because there's always interpretation involved—but I'd say the GP comment was quite a bit closer to the original topic; did not introduce a classic flamewar topic; contained more information than inflammation; and wasn't snarky.
      - luciusdomitius 4y ago
        Alright. Could we get a list of those "forbidden topics" in such case. Besides, I don't see it starting a flame war - you are pretty much the only person who commented, but whatever. Apparently we are leaving in Peak Clown times LOL.
        dang 4y ago
        I didn't say anything about forbidden topics. This is about comment quality, not topic. Note this, for example, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Re flamebait: I'm talking about what leads to flamewars in the statistical case. Suppose you drop a lit match in a dry forest. The argument "but it didn't cause a wildfire" is not a good one.
prox 4y ago
It’s a literal toxic mafia it seems. Just dump without consequences and pay the politicians to close their eyes. I hope countries wake up soon.

luciusdomitius 4y ago

dang 4y ago
Could you please stop posting flamebait comments to HN? It's against the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly. Fortunately your account has also posted good comments, but if you would please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
- luciusdomitius 4y ago
  May I ask what classifies this comment as flamebait, what the concrete criteria are and some other examples? Thanks P.S. Alright, now I see, that it would be under the "unrelated controversy" clause. Could you explain to me objectively how the parent comment doesn't fall under the same one too? And actually 40-50% of off-topic comments on HN? On top of that it is not completely unrelated either, as it is imo globally the second most prominent example of government miscalculation/cover up, the lack of accountability which followed it, etc.
  - dang 4y ago
    > May I ask what classifies this comment as flamebait Well, for starters, switching to a highly divisive topic that has nothing to do with the original story; jacking up the indignation/inflammation levels; snark; and I suppose also the political reference. > Could you explain to me objectively how the parent comment doesn't fall under the same one too? I don't know about "objectively" because there's always interpretation involved—but I'd say the GP comment was quite a bit closer to the original topic; did not introduce a classic flamewar topic; contained more information than inflammation; and wasn't snarky.
    - luciusdomitius 4y ago
      Alright. Could we get a list of those "forbidden topics" in such case. Besides, I don't see it starting a flame war - you are pretty much the only person who commented, but whatever. Apparently we are leaving in Peak Clown times LOL.
      - dang 4y ago
        I didn't say anything about forbidden topics. This is about comment quality, not topic. Note this, for example, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Re flamebait: I'm talking about what leads to flamewars in the statistical case. Suppose you drop a lit match in a dry forest. The argument "but it didn't cause a wildfire" is not a good one.

prox 4y ago

It’s a literal toxic mafia it seems. Just dump without consequences and pay the politicians to close their eyes. I hope countries wake up soon.