3 ms·

This is the source of the truth, it’s the place where the statement that could be covered by a hypothetical blog post or story would be coming from. It’s also

This is the source of the truth, it’s the place where the statement that could be covered by a hypothetical blog post or story would be coming from. It’s also the post that lies beyond the title of this post on HN. Really, I don’t know what would beat the linked content: it’s the source of the statement.

nickthegreek 3y ago
I flag this under the HN FAQ Entry. > Are paywalls ok? > It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html It is a primary source, not a source of truth. I cannot access the content without logging into the site. I cannot get an archive link to the entire chain. I cannot use an extension to gain access to the content like NYT or WSJ. Nitter is gone. You originally wanted to know why people flagged the content. I have answered your question several times, the content is not accessible. X used to allow you to see the chain without a login, that was acceptable. I am sorry that the primary source decided to use X to distribute their content. I am not saying that the post is truthful or not, I am saying I flagged it because I cannot access the content.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  The content is accessible. He just told you he tried multiple browsers, and they've shown the whole message without logging in. Is it not the same for you?
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    > Should I go public with the story about the time I was told I can’t be promoted for being a white man? > Fuck it, This happened at Google That company is an absolute trash can dumpster fire That is the whole thing?! I HAD to assume there was more. There is no context. Its an irate outcry. I stand by my flag. There is nothing here to discuss as there is no information provided besides someone saying "I didn't get promoted because I am white". That may or may not be true, but this is too vague to talk about here.
    - neverrroot 3y ago
      That’s the whole statement right there and it’s akin to many other linked but unflagged X posts: brief and without much context. If you want to see the context, you start digging. That’s how this stuff works, not only for my link. But I see, now it’s not the paywall anymore, now it’s something else entirely.
      - nickthegreek 3y ago
        No, the submission should provide the context. Also, this is not the whole statement like you just said. I know that because you posted other tweets from this user on this subject. You said this was the primary source... where do I go to get more information? Nowhere until he releases his story and not a teaser.
        neverrroot 3y ago
        This is not the standard being applied to many Tweets/X Posts. But you have the power over me and my posts on this platform, so have it your way.
        nickthegreek 3y ago
        I don't have power over you and it is not that serious. I am just trying to inform you why some people might flag something like this. There is no reason to argue with me with my explanation over my reason for flagging. It is my subjective opinion. You are entitled to yours, just as the rest of the community. Enough others appear to agree and have flagged. I know it can suck when there are a bunch of downvotes or flags without explanation. But at the same time, this is why people don't explain themselves. It is not worth it. I've now given over 15 minutes of my day to this when I could have ignored it all. I would have been better for it. You continue to cast yourself as a victim over this nonsense.
        neverrroot 3y ago
        Well, it’s of course not important to you, since you are not being unfairly suppressed. I’ve grown sensitive to this kind of stuff, since it has exploded over the recent years and it has a clear bias. Anyhow, fair point about your time. Thank you! I still have no idea how flagging works, thought you are the one person who flagged the post and thus removed it from the home page. Btw, I am the victim in this case, wouldn’t you agree? You know why? As you can see in my first comment to this story I did some research on what is allowed on this platform, and I also think this post is at home here due to this being Google and given the target audience. But at the same time, I now know much better, that this is a strongly biased place, so I already adjusted my expectations. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39477929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39477929
- neverrroot 3y ago
  The message is in its entirety accessible without logging in. I also see a lot of unflagged links to X on HN that show the login prompt beneath them, just like this one might show it, but it’s beneath the post on X. So I have to conclude that the reason for flagging my post might be a different one, but there is indeed a stipulations in the FAQ that you could base your flagging on. So you have the moral excuse to flag it, but don’t necessarily have the moral upper ground, because the post is entirely visible without logging in and there are cases of many unflagged links to X.

nickthegreek 3y ago

I flag this under the HN FAQ Entry. > Are paywalls ok? > It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html It is a primary source, not a source of truth. I cannot access the content without logging into the site. I cannot get an archive link to the entire chain. I cannot use an extension to gain access to the content like NYT or WSJ. Nitter is gone. You originally wanted to know why people flagged the content. I have answered your question several times, the content is not accessible. X used to allow you to see the chain without a login, that was acceptable. I am sorry that the primary source decided to use X to distribute their content. I am not saying that the post is truthful or not, I am saying I flagged it because I cannot access the content.

lostmsu 3y ago
The content is accessible. He just told you he tried multiple browsers, and they've shown the whole message without logging in. Is it not the same for you?
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  > Should I go public with the story about the time I was told I can’t be promoted for being a white man? > Fuck it, This happened at Google That company is an absolute trash can dumpster fire That is the whole thing?! I HAD to assume there was more. There is no context. Its an irate outcry. I stand by my flag. There is nothing here to discuss as there is no information provided besides someone saying "I didn't get promoted because I am white". That may or may not be true, but this is too vague to talk about here.
  - neverrroot 3y ago
    That’s the whole statement right there and it’s akin to many other linked but unflagged X posts: brief and without much context. If you want to see the context, you start digging. That’s how this stuff works, not only for my link. But I see, now it’s not the paywall anymore, now it’s something else entirely.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      No, the submission should provide the context. Also, this is not the whole statement like you just said. I know that because you posted other tweets from this user on this subject. You said this was the primary source... where do I go to get more information? Nowhere until he releases his story and not a teaser.
      - neverrroot 3y ago
        This is not the standard being applied to many Tweets/X Posts. But you have the power over me and my posts on this platform, so have it your way.
        nickthegreek 3y ago
        I don't have power over you and it is not that serious. I am just trying to inform you why some people might flag something like this. There is no reason to argue with me with my explanation over my reason for flagging. It is my subjective opinion. You are entitled to yours, just as the rest of the community. Enough others appear to agree and have flagged. I know it can suck when there are a bunch of downvotes or flags without explanation. But at the same time, this is why people don't explain themselves. It is not worth it. I've now given over 15 minutes of my day to this when I could have ignored it all. I would have been better for it. You continue to cast yourself as a victim over this nonsense.
        neverrroot 3y ago
        Well, it’s of course not important to you, since you are not being unfairly suppressed. I’ve grown sensitive to this kind of stuff, since it has exploded over the recent years and it has a clear bias. Anyhow, fair point about your time. Thank you! I still have no idea how flagging works, thought you are the one person who flagged the post and thus removed it from the home page. Btw, I am the victim in this case, wouldn’t you agree? You know why? As you can see in my first comment to this story I did some research on what is allowed on this platform, and I also think this post is at home here due to this being Google and given the target audience. But at the same time, I now know much better, that this is a strongly biased place, so I already adjusted my expectations. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39477929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39477929
neverrroot 3y ago
The message is in its entirety accessible without logging in. I also see a lot of unflagged links to X on HN that show the login prompt beneath them, just like this one might show it, but it’s beneath the post on X. So I have to conclude that the reason for flagging my post might be a different one, but there is indeed a stipulations in the FAQ that you could base your flagging on. So you have the moral excuse to flag it, but don’t necessarily have the moral upper ground, because the post is entirely visible without logging in and there are cases of many unflagged links to X.