4 ms·
Hi swombat, Regarding gawker, as I remember, there was a discussion here whether to ban it, and most people were for the ban. The reason was the low quality of
by greyman 18y ago
Hi swombat,
Regarding gawker, as I remember, there was a discussion here whether to ban it, and most people were for the ban. The reason was the low quality of journalism and defamation tendencies in some of its articles. So gawker is indeed banned.
- nraynaud 18y agowhy not ban techcrunch on the same grounds then ?
- evdawg 18y agoBecause TechCrunch is in bed with YCombinator, of course ;) http://uncov.com/ycombinator-techcrunch-butthappy http://uncov.com/ycombinator-techcrunch-butthappy (Yes, this is a joke)
- fauigerzigerk 18y agoTechcrunch is indeed pretty nasty sometimes, and I have criticised them here before, but it would be utterly ridiculous if hacker news, a news site for startups, banned one of the preeminent startup blogs. Techcrunch is influential and as such it is relevant for many people here. You can ban a site that is nasty and irrelevant, but you cannot ban a very relevant site just because some articles are odious. Banning should not be about morals, but rather about usefulness.
- bliving 18y agoNoisy != useful Moralistic != useful But your mileage may vary.
- swombat 18y agoYeah. As I said, I'm not objecting to the idea of sites being banned. That seems fairly reasonable to me. However, it'd be nice to know which sites were banned, and for what. Gawker, I can totally understand. Infochachkie, on the other hand, seems like a pretty decent site so I'm not quite sure why they were banned. Are there others which were banned that we don't know about? Were they banned for a good reason? Can your own site/blog/etc get banned in a similar way? What are the criteria? What should you avoid doing? etc.