4 ms·

If someone doesn't want you to come into their house, even if you found the address through a friend it's not rude. They neither are scolding you nor berating y

If someone doesn't want you to come into their house, even if you found the address through a friend it's not rude. They neither are scolding you nor berating you like certain websites that are linked from HN. They just redirect you to Google, from where you can still visit the site. They don't want direct links, that's it.

rascul 3y ago
I don't buy the website equals house analogy. But if I did, redirecting to Google is like sending me to the landfill instead of locking the door and putting up a sign.
- anaganisk 3y ago
  Sending to Google is, asking you to go back to the road most info is accessed from Google, it's not a landfill, they're not sending you to some random troll website hosted on tor. They don't want interactions with HN plain and simple. It's up to them to choose how or on what parameters to deny your access, at least they did their part gracefully. But adding explicit evasion techniques for a particular site, is not at all graceful. HN is a discussion forum, not an archive or search engine or content repository, it seems funny for it to add explicit techniques to allow its users to evade restrictions.
  - rascul 3y ago
    > They don't want interactions with HN plain and simple. Fine. So put up a page saying that. Don't instead send me to some privacy invasive and user hostile third party such as Google.
    - anaganisk 3y ago
      Ok, I finally see you what you meant by landfill, I mean Google is synonymous with search, for anyone. How many on HN think of Google as privacy invasive and hostile, yet use it as primary search engine? They literally redirected you to the internet's search page for general public. Your opinion is very subjective if you consider redirecting to Google is correct or not. The original argument of mine was, why should HN implement code explicitly for a target website, that is blocking it? Do they do the same for region locked content websites/pay walled sites, no? Then this is not correct.

rascul 3y ago

I don't buy the website equals house analogy. But if I did, redirecting to Google is like sending me to the landfill instead of locking the door and putting up a sign.

anaganisk 3y ago
Sending to Google is, asking you to go back to the road most info is accessed from Google, it's not a landfill, they're not sending you to some random troll website hosted on tor. They don't want interactions with HN plain and simple. It's up to them to choose how or on what parameters to deny your access, at least they did their part gracefully. But adding explicit evasion techniques for a particular site, is not at all graceful. HN is a discussion forum, not an archive or search engine or content repository, it seems funny for it to add explicit techniques to allow its users to evade restrictions.
- rascul 3y ago
  > They don't want interactions with HN plain and simple. Fine. So put up a page saying that. Don't instead send me to some privacy invasive and user hostile third party such as Google.
  - anaganisk 3y ago
    Ok, I finally see you what you meant by landfill, I mean Google is synonymous with search, for anyone. How many on HN think of Google as privacy invasive and hostile, yet use it as primary search engine? They literally redirected you to the internet's search page for general public. Your opinion is very subjective if you consider redirecting to Google is correct or not. The original argument of mine was, why should HN implement code explicitly for a target website, that is blocking it? Do they do the same for region locked content websites/pay walled sites, no? Then this is not correct.