3 ms·

From HN "Guidelines" page: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Off-Topic: Most stories about po

From HN "Guidelines" page: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. As much as you're entirely right that HN's readership decides what succeeds or not, pretty much every example you've furnished is defined clearly as "off topic" submissions. The Wuhan lab leak theory, regardless of how we view it in hindsight, was paraded as a sensational event up and down party lines. It never had a chance on this site, like Donald Trump drama or "Ask HN: What did you think of Kardashians last night?". Maybe it is relevant - but framing it sensationally is like toxic waste to this site's readers. > the orthodoxy was that you shall not talk about everyday causes of depression or ADD > So now we have a lot of taboos to talk about overdiagnosis of ADHD and gender dysphoria, talking about the DSM V criteria They're not taboo. They're just not appropriate conversation topics for a hacking/finance website. The few times that it has become a big discussion topic has been through the lens of engineering lifestyles and personal experience. Even that is arguably too sappy for a non-Reddit website. > Now it's OK to talk about it > So yes.. right now the thing is to hate on Web3 Very subtle foreshadowing - you almost make it sound like Web3 has a second chance or something. Truth is, like I said at the beginning - HN chooses what they want to hear. Most websites that give their users any degree of control over their experience let this happen (see Twitter, where users block the verified users). If you demand engagement on a topic nobody cares about, it stands to reason that you'll feel repeatedly disappointed by this website.

stale2002 3y ago
> Maybe it is relevant I think it absolutely is relevant, given that the conversation itself was about changing narratives, as a meta point. > you almost make it sound like Web3 has a second chance or something. This thread itself, is one of the rare ones where bringing up web3 actually is relevant, yes. It is reasonable for him to make that argument, because the topic is literally about how to authenticate things when you have an opposing central authority. > If you demand engagement on a topic nobody cares about His point wasn't about engagement. Instead his point was about how unpopular opinions are being proved correct, and that people were way to quick to dismiss ideas. His point was that people should be able to look ahead, into the future, instead of immediately dismissing things out of hand, just because the thing isn't directly effecting the world right now. IE, if you were downvoting/disagreeing with opinions about how AI is going to make it hard to authenticate information online, then you were wrong and were way to quick to dismiss an opinion out of hand.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > as a meta point. I mean, it's a stretch. I could use that stretching metaphor as an excuse to talk about taffy for 4 paragraphs, but it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. Scrounging up discussion about Web3 on an Indian government exposé is off-topic, and readers will flag it. It's equally substantial as those "this is good for Bitcoin" posts that get flagged under every article about a government treasury. > the topic is literally about how to authenticate things when you have an opposing central authority. If so, his flagged post didn't reflect it. It was a vapid comment that made no attempt to reconcile either topic. > his point was about how unpopular opinions are being proved correct If you want to argue that the Blockchain could have prevented this from happening, then by all means - write that comment. But that's not what his flagged post was. It detracted from the conversation and quite literally read as flamebait. > if you were downvoting/disagreeing with opinions about how AI is going to make it hard to authenticate information online, then you were wrong Spoilers: it has been hard to authenticate information online for as long as the internet has been around. In fact, the most significant events are corroborated with real life occurrences that challenge these lies. These women can attest that they did not do this in the photo. If government officials insist that the version with them smiling is the true master copy, then you're the fool for believing them. I'm baffled that this is even being used as a platform to discuss Web3, a collection of technologies mostly reputed for... being manipulated and exploited by bad actors that cannot be incentivized to stop.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Scrounging up discussion about Web3 on an Indian government exposé is off-topic It really isn't. Because it is one of the normally very rare use cases for web 3 stuff, and the topic is directly about a case where such a thing would be needed. > it has been hard to authenticate information online That's nice and all. But the claim was that people were previously dismissing opinions about AI that are now mainstream. So yes, you'd be wrong if you were outright dismissing these opinions about AI before, which are now popular. And it is useful and interesting to point out how previous opinions that were dismissed out of hand, are now mainstream, using this situation as an example.

stale2002 3y ago

> Maybe it is relevant I think it absolutely is relevant, given that the conversation itself was about changing narratives, as a meta point. > you almost make it sound like Web3 has a second chance or something. This thread itself, is one of the rare ones where bringing up web3 actually is relevant, yes. It is reasonable for him to make that argument, because the topic is literally about how to authenticate things when you have an opposing central authority. > If you demand engagement on a topic nobody cares about His point wasn't about engagement. Instead his point was about how unpopular opinions are being proved correct, and that people were way to quick to dismiss ideas. His point was that people should be able to look ahead, into the future, instead of immediately dismissing things out of hand, just because the thing isn't directly effecting the world right now. IE, if you were downvoting/disagreeing with opinions about how AI is going to make it hard to authenticate information online, then you were wrong and were way to quick to dismiss an opinion out of hand.

smoldesu 3y ago
> as a meta point. I mean, it's a stretch. I could use that stretching metaphor as an excuse to talk about taffy for 4 paragraphs, but it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. Scrounging up discussion about Web3 on an Indian government exposé is off-topic, and readers will flag it. It's equally substantial as those "this is good for Bitcoin" posts that get flagged under every article about a government treasury. > the topic is literally about how to authenticate things when you have an opposing central authority. If so, his flagged post didn't reflect it. It was a vapid comment that made no attempt to reconcile either topic. > his point was about how unpopular opinions are being proved correct If you want to argue that the Blockchain could have prevented this from happening, then by all means - write that comment. But that's not what his flagged post was. It detracted from the conversation and quite literally read as flamebait. > if you were downvoting/disagreeing with opinions about how AI is going to make it hard to authenticate information online, then you were wrong Spoilers: it has been hard to authenticate information online for as long as the internet has been around. In fact, the most significant events are corroborated with real life occurrences that challenge these lies. These women can attest that they did not do this in the photo. If government officials insist that the version with them smiling is the true master copy, then you're the fool for believing them. I'm baffled that this is even being used as a platform to discuss Web3, a collection of technologies mostly reputed for... being manipulated and exploited by bad actors that cannot be incentivized to stop.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Scrounging up discussion about Web3 on an Indian government exposé is off-topic It really isn't. Because it is one of the normally very rare use cases for web 3 stuff, and the topic is directly about a case where such a thing would be needed. > it has been hard to authenticate information online That's nice and all. But the claim was that people were previously dismissing opinions about AI that are now mainstream. So yes, you'd be wrong if you were outright dismissing these opinions about AI before, which are now popular. And it is useful and interesting to point out how previous opinions that were dismissed out of hand, are now mainstream, using this situation as an example.