3 ms·

Isn't this one of the "allegations of mental illness" they point out?

by vidanay 3y ago

cosmojg 3y ago
Oh, I thought they meant "help" as in "help from the HN moderation team."
- vidanay 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cosmojg 3y ago
    I honestly did think that, though I no longer do. I might have made the mistake of wrongly assuming good faith, but wrongly assuming bad faith is certainly far worse. Please stop.
  - kykeonaut 3y ago
    Which pretty much validated the author's claim.
unethical_ban 3y ago
[flagged]
- mort96 3y ago
  What's offensive about it? Are you so easily offended that you can't handle someone disliking a website you sometimes read?
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    > What's offensive about it? You don't know what's offensive in showing every HN user who is not a moderator they can't view this website because they visit HN? "Offensive" - "Causing anger, displeasure, or resentment" "Resentment" - "feeling of having been wronged" Majority here did nothing wrong. Quite a bit probably downvoted/flagged comments in question. Their worst offense was reading HN. Many will get resentment (see above) therefore the thing is offensive by definition.
    - mort96 3y ago
      I don't know what's offensive about a blog blocking visitors from a site with a history of harassing the owners of said blog. The implementation is unfortunate, since it blocks anyone who has visited this comments page (not HN in general). However, I recognise that the unfortunate implementation is a direct result of HN's efforts to circumvent all better approaches. I truly do not see what's offensive here. I do not understand how one can be left with a feeling of having been wronged simply because a blog decided to block people who visit from HN.
      - lostmsu 3y ago
        > I don't know what's offensive about a blog blocking visitors from a site with a history of harassing the owners of said blog. I literally just told you. > However, I recognise that the unfortunate implementation is a direct result of HN's efforts to circumvent all better approaches. Is it? In what way? If they used the referrer, what would have been different? > I do not understand how one can be left with a feeling of having been wronged simply because a blog decided to block people who visit from HN. You had pretty simple explanations for this all over the page. From me (see the comment about kicking users after being unable to persuade admins who they have a real resentment against), and others (the bits about painting with the same brush). At this point it would be fair to say that you are just ignoring them because they lead to a conclusion you might not like.
        mort96 3y ago
        > Is it? In what way? If they used the referrer, what would have been different? HN started adding rel="noreferrer" to asahilinux.org posts (and then eventually to all links I think?) after the asahi folks first did referrer-based blocking. This is actually explained in the message you're so angry about: > We have tried to raise the issue of rampant abuse and low-quality discussion with HN mods, but instead of replying they added rel="noreferrer" to links to our site (specifically), to make it harder for us to block HN traffic ... > You had pretty simple explanations for this all over the page. From me (see the comment about kicking users after being unable to persuade admins who they have a real resentment against), and others (the bits about painting with the same brush). At this point it would be fair to say that you are just ignoring them because they lead to a conclusion you might not like. I'm not ignoring anything. I read what you say. I just don't understand it. No part of "they block visitors from a site I use" causes anything resembling a feeling of resentment in me. Quite the opposite; if my blog posts were constantly being linked to HN and I got a ton of harassment from the HN audience as a result, I would've probably tried to implement measures to prevent my blog to end up on HN as well. I don't understand what would cause someone to take a HN block personally.

Isn't this one of the "allegations of mental illness" they point out?

cosmojg 3y ago

Oh, I thought they meant "help" as in "help from the HN moderation team."

vidanay 3y ago
[flagged]
- cosmojg 3y ago
  I honestly did think that, though I no longer do. I might have made the mistake of wrongly assuming good faith, but wrongly assuming bad faith is certainly far worse. Please stop.
- kykeonaut 3y ago
  Which pretty much validated the author's claim.

unethical_ban 3y ago

[flagged]

mort96 3y ago
What's offensive about it? Are you so easily offended that you can't handle someone disliking a website you sometimes read?
- lostmsu 3y ago
  > What's offensive about it? You don't know what's offensive in showing every HN user who is not a moderator they can't view this website because they visit HN? "Offensive" - "Causing anger, displeasure, or resentment" "Resentment" - "feeling of having been wronged" Majority here did nothing wrong. Quite a bit probably downvoted/flagged comments in question. Their worst offense was reading HN. Many will get resentment (see above) therefore the thing is offensive by definition.
  - mort96 3y ago
    I don't know what's offensive about a blog blocking visitors from a site with a history of harassing the owners of said blog. The implementation is unfortunate, since it blocks anyone who has visited this comments page (not HN in general). However, I recognise that the unfortunate implementation is a direct result of HN's efforts to circumvent all better approaches. I truly do not see what's offensive here. I do not understand how one can be left with a feeling of having been wronged simply because a blog decided to block people who visit from HN.
    - lostmsu 3y ago
      > I don't know what's offensive about a blog blocking visitors from a site with a history of harassing the owners of said blog. I literally just told you. > However, I recognise that the unfortunate implementation is a direct result of HN's efforts to circumvent all better approaches. Is it? In what way? If they used the referrer, what would have been different? > I do not understand how one can be left with a feeling of having been wronged simply because a blog decided to block people who visit from HN. You had pretty simple explanations for this all over the page. From me (see the comment about kicking users after being unable to persuade admins who they have a real resentment against), and others (the bits about painting with the same brush). At this point it would be fair to say that you are just ignoring them because they lead to a conclusion you might not like.
      - mort96 3y ago
        > Is it? In what way? If they used the referrer, what would have been different? HN started adding rel="noreferrer" to asahilinux.org posts (and then eventually to all links I think?) after the asahi folks first did referrer-based blocking. This is actually explained in the message you're so angry about: > We have tried to raise the issue of rampant abuse and low-quality discussion with HN mods, but instead of replying they added rel="noreferrer" to links to our site (specifically), to make it harder for us to block HN traffic ... > You had pretty simple explanations for this all over the page. From me (see the comment about kicking users after being unable to persuade admins who they have a real resentment against), and others (the bits about painting with the same brush). At this point it would be fair to say that you are just ignoring them because they lead to a conclusion you might not like. I'm not ignoring anything. I read what you say. I just don't understand it. No part of "they block visitors from a site I use" causes anything resembling a feeling of resentment in me. Quite the opposite; if my blog posts were constantly being linked to HN and I got a ton of harassment from the HN audience as a result, I would've probably tried to implement measures to prevent my blog to end up on HN as well. I don't understand what would cause someone to take a HN block personally.