4 ms·
These kinds of edits, without edit history, seem ripe for abuse
by hackernewds 4y ago
These kinds of edits, without edit history, seem ripe for abuse
- boomboomsubban 4y agoHow? And how would edit history realistically stop the admins who could modify the edit history?
- pvg 4y agoOne of the few times 'the blockchain' might be a sensible answer, silly as the premise of url or title attack is.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- colejohnson66 4y agoTrue, but blockchains only help if you have multiple copies of the chain. With one copy, there’s nothing stoping the owner from rewriting history. It’s why companies saying they’re “investing in blockchains” means nothing; DB replication/redundancy doesn’t stop a malicious owner. So unless we’re all gonna start storing copies of HN’s database(s) on our home computers and phones, a blockchain won’t help stop abuse. Speaking of which, how big would said copies be?
- phoe-krk 4y agoIt all boils down to the fact that dang, the admin who does the edits, has a history of doing these changes quite rarely and within reason, plus he always leaves comments when he does so. That approach awarded him some general trust, including mine.
- geuis 4y agoPart of the issue is that it isn't that rare. I guess because I'm reading HN all the time these changes seem fairly frequent, despite overall submission volume. I also have the same trust.
- Chris2048 4y ago> plus he always leaves comments when he does so How do you know this?
- geuis 4y agoHe does do this, and based on reputation it's perfectly fine. But I'd personally prefer to see this as part of the api and UI.
- phoe-krk 4y agoIt takes one scandal stemming from a hostile link change to take this sort of reputation down. Since all of that information is public, to paraphrase Linus, with enough eyes, all HN link changes are shallow.
- Chris2048 4y agoIs it public? I don't see a history attached to posts.