5 ms·
Easy: HN users' Google apologism. I participated in a few Google critical discussion in the past few weeks and a surprising number of them were killed for no a
by falling 15y ago
Easy: HN users' Google apologism.
I participated in a few Google critical discussion in the past few weeks and a surprising number of them were killed for no apparent reason. They were lively, non abusive discussion, they just happened to be slightly critical to Google.
Since I have never witnessed the same for any other topic, I concluded that the HN crowd doesn't like Google being criticized too much.
- npc 15y agoI've witnessed plenty of Google apologism on HN, but to be fair I've also witnessed a significant amount of anti-Google bias as well. Either way, saying that HN is deliberately blocking anti-Google sites strikes me as paranoid and needlessly cynical.
- falling 15y agoNot HN, NH's crowd: by flagging those links. Of course the HN code itself is not biased. (amended original post) Of course people will be biased both ways, but I never personally witnessed dead links on Apple, Facebook or Microsoft criticizing discussions, so that's my conclusion from personal experience.
- npc 15y agoEven saying "HN's crowd" is deliberately flagging legitimate links that are critical of Google is cynical as well. I must ask though, if you think HN is filled with people who are so uninterested in legitimate discussion, then why are you posting here? I'm not trying to be accusatory, but to me, posting on a site where people are not interested in honest discussion would feel like a huge waste of time.
- falling 15y agoYou are making my words sound worse than intended. It's not cynical: there cannot be an unbiased community so, by your reasoning, neither you or me should be part of any. I'm just saying that, by the nature of Google as a company and of this community, the crowd here is more likely to be favorable to Google and take their side on issues, and this is evidenced by my own experience.
- Natsu 15y agoIt appears that the first submission had a highly editorialized headline and was submitted by someone who had made no other submissions or comments. Given the gravity of the accusation, I can easily see someone flagging it without even reading it. That would be enough to kill it and then the anti-spam code takes over from there with no conspiracy required, just one or maybe two flags on a story where someone thought the headline was overly editorialized.
- falling 15y agoCorrect: no conspiracy required, just bias.
- dos1 15y agoMy experience mirrors yours exactly. I'm not sure how or why Google garnered an untouchable status but I find it frustrating.
- falling 15y agoThey did it just like Apple and Microsoft did it with their own audience: by making stuff they like and being friendly to them. People will always be biased, Google has always been a hacker friendly place so naturally hackers will like them and when you like somebody because you share their (true or perceived) values, you'll be biased in their favor.
- foreverbanned 15y agoObviously you have never participated in an Apple critical discussion...