4 ms·

This person has a strange vendetta against SpaceX and has in the past made some extremely doomy predictions that didn't pan out, e.g. that the FAA's environment

This person has a strange vendetta against SpaceX and has in the past made some extremely doomy predictions that didn't pan out, e.g. that the FAA's environmental review of the BC site was going to end badly for SpaceX. I think they have a very strong confirmation bias in this direction that colors everything they write, and so they are probably not worth paying attention to regardless of what you think about SpaceX.

brookst 4y ago
Perhaps, but the fact that this article was so effectively suppressed on HN makes me wonder how what other dissenting opinions and claims of malfeasance the Musk fan boys have suppressed. I didn't know there even were significant concerns (even if possibly wrong) until I happened to see this article before it was flagged for removal. What else is being whitewashed?
- jason-phillips 4y ago
  It was "suppressed" because it's malodorous garbage.
  - johnklos 4y ago
    It's interesting that nobody here seems to refute any of the assertions and would rather hand-wave.
    - caconym_ 4y ago
      Why bother when the source has previously shown itself to be biased and unreliable? That's what happens when you pretend to be a journalist without applying journalistic standards: people will stop taking you seriously, and with good reason. As an aside, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it's interesting how many comments in this thread read like they were written by ESG Hound him(?)self.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - brookst 4y ago
    Funny, usually HN comments reply to factually incorrect articles with well informed rebuttals rather than just shouting them down and insulting everyone.
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      Those people tend to comment on substantive articles not written by people with a history of emotionally laden axe grinding.
- fabian2k 4y ago
  Posts that are critical of Musk do get flagged quite often in my observation, e.g. posts around various pieces of Twitter drama caused by Musk. That part is intentional by HN, as these posts tend to produce rather low quality discussions and in the end are almost always the same. I don't particularly like how this rule results in a kind of criticism shield for Musk and similar cases, but I understand why HN has it. This case is different in my opinion and should not be flagged because it is about a new topic that I would consider interesting on its own. Of course it'll get bogged down a bit like all discussions with Musk as part of the topic. But by far not as bad as posts about Musk himself.

brookst 4y ago

Perhaps, but the fact that this article was so effectively suppressed on HN makes me wonder how what other dissenting opinions and claims of malfeasance the Musk fan boys have suppressed. I didn't know there even were significant concerns (even if possibly wrong) until I happened to see this article before it was flagged for removal. What else is being whitewashed?

jason-phillips 4y ago
It was "suppressed" because it's malodorous garbage.
- johnklos 4y ago
  It's interesting that nobody here seems to refute any of the assertions and would rather hand-wave.
  - caconym_ 4y ago
    Why bother when the source has previously shown itself to be biased and unreliable? That's what happens when you pretend to be a journalist without applying journalistic standards: people will stop taking you seriously, and with good reason. As an aside, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it's interesting how many comments in this thread read like they were written by ESG Hound him(?)self.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- brookst 4y ago
  Funny, usually HN comments reply to factually incorrect articles with well informed rebuttals rather than just shouting them down and insulting everyone.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Those people tend to comment on substantive articles not written by people with a history of emotionally laden axe grinding.
fabian2k 4y ago
Posts that are critical of Musk do get flagged quite often in my observation, e.g. posts around various pieces of Twitter drama caused by Musk. That part is intentional by HN, as these posts tend to produce rather low quality discussions and in the end are almost always the same. I don't particularly like how this rule results in a kind of criticism shield for Musk and similar cases, but I understand why HN has it. This case is different in my opinion and should not be flagged because it is about a new topic that I would consider interesting on its own. Of course it'll get bogged down a bit like all discussions with Musk as part of the topic. But by far not as bad as posts about Musk himself.