4 ms·
This is extremely gross 'Dang, and I'm wondering how you can possibly defend doing this. Seriously, why are you going to these lengths to evade a soft-block on
by dtornabene 3y ago
This is extremely gross 'Dang, and I'm wondering how you can possibly defend doing this. Seriously, why are you going to these lengths to evade a soft-block on links to specific sites that very clearly and explicitly are communicating that they don't want HN's traffic?
- slikrick 3y agothe moderation here literally doesn't care about the authors and developers who provide the links to the articles. routinely they let them be harassed and derided on HN and do not care to focus on their attempts to stay off and away from that. it's completely expected but still shameful.
- jacooper 3y agoYeeeeeah, your stretching with your definition of harassment.
- jacooper 3y agoit*
- dtornabene 3y agoadding a config to your webserver to evade a soft block is directly enabling continued harassment. Its not passive, not "I'm just getting out of the way here", not "I can't stop this, not my fault", you are literally editing your webservers config file for a site-specific change to allow your forum visitors to evade an explicit block, a block enacted because of harassment.
- jacooper 3y agoI mean that's because you consider it harassment. But if you consider it simple criticisms, suddenly its the person not accepting them, not harassment. Celebrities deal with much worse, yet they don't consider "Taylor switft is ugly" harassment.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoYeah this is pretty inexcusable.
- MBCook 3y agoCan’t agree more. Disgusting.