4 ms·

It is a different argument, but they do not contradict one another and they(edit) does single out Anduril in the original post: > It has nothing to do with And

It is a different argument, but they do not contradict one another and they(edit) does single out Anduril in the original post: > It has nothing to do with Anduril's business (which is a separate discussion) and everything to do with insulting a community they're dependent on. so it seems like it was always somewhat specific to Anduril and the claimed behavior of Anduril. Though I do not know what the insult that Anduril committed against the community.

andrewflnr 2y ago
They don't contradict each other, and they don't have to. The generic "argument" is plainly wrong for the reason forrestthewoods pointed out: this is an official section of the forums dedicated to advertising by private companies. So why did they say that, instead of explaining what grave insult Anduril committed? I don't know, I guess they're having a strong emotional response to the situation.
- davorak 2y ago
  > The generic "argument" is plainly wrong for the reason forrestthewoods pointed out: this is an official section of the forums dedicated to advertising by private companies. I would not say their argument is wrong. My best read is that they were arguing against and completely open job forum for corporations in general and for some kind of gatekeeping. It seemed an argument against current practices. I can not call that wrong, though I would want to see what they would want as an alternative.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    An argument against the current practice where Anduril is banned? Come on. Your attempt to steelman them is admirable to an extent, but there's nothing there to save. They overreached and got called on it.
    - davorak 2y ago
      > An argument against the current practice where Anduril is banned? An argument against Anduril being able to post in the first place before they were banned, or maybe all corporations. The current practice was to allow Anduril to post, when they made their post. The poster was celebrating the removal and the ban as a step in the right direction, but my impression is they would go farther. They seemed to revel in Anduril's ban which seemed at least to be schadenfreude, and they did not back some of what they said while doing so, but I think that can be separated from the rest of their argument/desires.
      - andrewflnr 2y ago
        You're saying they advocated a policy that pre-emptively and specifically banned Anduril from posting in the jobs section of their forum before they posted a single thing? There's no evidence that that's justified or that the top level poster believed that. And it still wouldn't change that their swipe at corporate advertising was nonsense. Maybe they advocate for removing the job board entirely? They didn't say that though, even when forrestthewoods specifically mentioned it. Instead they moved the goal posts.
        davorak 2y ago
        > You're saying they advocated a policy that pre-emptively and specifically banned Anduril from posting At(edit) this point I can not double check the post to see if I was reading it right since it is currently hidden after being flagged. Most of the stuff I see flagged to removal on HN is more extreme than what was said by the OP here. At least advocating for gatekeeping like I mentioned before. They did not get into specifics from what I remember. > There's no evidence that that's justified I think we are on the same page about them not posting evidence for justification around Anduril. > And it still wouldn't change that their swipe at corporate advertising was nonsense. There is a wide amount of opinion on what is justifiable corporate advertising. I do not remember any specific policy that they advocated for that came off as nonsense. I would say it did not sound like an opinion held by the majority of this forum or my everyday life in the USA. > Maybe they advocate for removing the job board entirely? If they came back and said 'yes that is what I want' I would not be surprised, but all we have to go off of is: > Good, private corporations should not be allowed to leverage a public utility like this as their advertisement soapbox. So maybe as long as the private corporations do not "leverage a public utility" as an "advertisement soapbox" they could post on the forum. > Instead they moved the goal posts. I do not see the goal posts moving, maybe they were, in the OP's head, but I can not extract that from the text. Moving the goal posts in my mind would be if the OP set some criteria, then someone pointing out Anduril met that criteria, then the OP changing the criteria so Anduril did not qualify anymore. The only criteria given though was: > private corporations should not be allowed to leverage a public utility like this as their advertisement soapbox And the thread did not dig down on that, no one said Anduril met the criteria, and the criteria was not changed. Would have been a more interesting conversation if the thread had dug down on: What did Anduril do? Why does it disqualify them? What is the OP's standard? Is it consistent?

andrewflnr 2y ago

They don't contradict each other, and they don't have to. The generic "argument" is plainly wrong for the reason forrestthewoods pointed out: this is an official section of the forums dedicated to advertising by private companies. So why did they say that, instead of explaining what grave insult Anduril committed? I don't know, I guess they're having a strong emotional response to the situation.

davorak 2y ago
> The generic "argument" is plainly wrong for the reason forrestthewoods pointed out: this is an official section of the forums dedicated to advertising by private companies. I would not say their argument is wrong. My best read is that they were arguing against and completely open job forum for corporations in general and for some kind of gatekeeping. It seemed an argument against current practices. I can not call that wrong, though I would want to see what they would want as an alternative.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  An argument against the current practice where Anduril is banned? Come on. Your attempt to steelman them is admirable to an extent, but there's nothing there to save. They overreached and got called on it.
  - davorak 2y ago
    > An argument against the current practice where Anduril is banned? An argument against Anduril being able to post in the first place before they were banned, or maybe all corporations. The current practice was to allow Anduril to post, when they made their post. The poster was celebrating the removal and the ban as a step in the right direction, but my impression is they would go farther. They seemed to revel in Anduril's ban which seemed at least to be schadenfreude, and they did not back some of what they said while doing so, but I think that can be separated from the rest of their argument/desires.
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      You're saying they advocated a policy that pre-emptively and specifically banned Anduril from posting in the jobs section of their forum before they posted a single thing? There's no evidence that that's justified or that the top level poster believed that. And it still wouldn't change that their swipe at corporate advertising was nonsense. Maybe they advocate for removing the job board entirely? They didn't say that though, even when forrestthewoods specifically mentioned it. Instead they moved the goal posts.
      - davorak 2y ago
        > You're saying they advocated a policy that pre-emptively and specifically banned Anduril from posting At(edit) this point I can not double check the post to see if I was reading it right since it is currently hidden after being flagged. Most of the stuff I see flagged to removal on HN is more extreme than what was said by the OP here. At least advocating for gatekeeping like I mentioned before. They did not get into specifics from what I remember. > There's no evidence that that's justified I think we are on the same page about them not posting evidence for justification around Anduril. > And it still wouldn't change that their swipe at corporate advertising was nonsense. There is a wide amount of opinion on what is justifiable corporate advertising. I do not remember any specific policy that they advocated for that came off as nonsense. I would say it did not sound like an opinion held by the majority of this forum or my everyday life in the USA. > Maybe they advocate for removing the job board entirely? If they came back and said 'yes that is what I want' I would not be surprised, but all we have to go off of is: > Good, private corporations should not be allowed to leverage a public utility like this as their advertisement soapbox. So maybe as long as the private corporations do not "leverage a public utility" as an "advertisement soapbox" they could post on the forum. > Instead they moved the goal posts. I do not see the goal posts moving, maybe they were, in the OP's head, but I can not extract that from the text. Moving the goal posts in my mind would be if the OP set some criteria, then someone pointing out Anduril met that criteria, then the OP changing the criteria so Anduril did not qualify anymore. The only criteria given though was: > private corporations should not be allowed to leverage a public utility like this as their advertisement soapbox And the thread did not dig down on that, no one said Anduril met the criteria, and the criteria was not changed. Would have been a more interesting conversation if the thread had dug down on: What did Anduril do? Why does it disqualify them? What is the OP's standard? Is it consistent?