3 ms·

Point one justifies a few articles, not a daily deluge. Point two is true, but pissing off a significant part of your constituency is not healthy for the commu

Point one justifies a few articles, not a daily deluge. Point two is true, but pissing off a significant part of your constituency is not healthy for the community. Point three is a cute way to try to subvert the fact that the guidelines explicitly state "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." Not every commentator's opinion about a month-old leak is evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. You may not like this or agree with it, but the HN Guidelines are effectively the constitution of HN. It should supersede your own desire to bring up politics whenever possible. I agree firmly voodoo123. You have an entire internet full of places to whine about American politics. HN is apparently deciding right now that politics is always on-topic, in opposition to the guidelines. Fine, so be it, but we will continue to whine about it until the guidelines are changed, because we like the guidelines better.

tehwalrus 13y ago
Apologies, I didn't realise the guidelines officially discourage "most politics". I do appreciate that people who are not political geeks are probably enjoying the ongoing Snowden stories a lot less than me! I'm still going to keep upvoting them though, I'm afraid. EDITED: I said "prohibited," but they're guidelines, so switched to "discourage".
- fusiongyro 13y ago
  Vote your conscience and so will I.
angersock 13y ago
Pay closer attention, sir--this isn't American politics writ large, but a small section of issues that has deep and far-reaching consequences for our customers, our businesses, and (without meaning to sound too grandiose) nothing less than the future of privacy and exploratory computing. This is exactly the sort of useful stuff I'd like to see here.
- fusiongyro 13y ago
  Sure. And I don't object to a few articles with a lot of meat. But what I don't need is every pundit's reaction, to see every breaking story about which company cooperated and which did not, followed by a story summarizing the tally, followed by two reactions to the summary from two more pundits, followed by a guy who has a bone to pick with one of them, followed by a new revelation about a fifteenth company, ... The guidelines clearly make an exception for new, interesting stories that have wide-reaching consequences. I agree and am glad that I found out here about the major abuses, the amendment and the more recent bill. That's four stories of real value. What the guidelines do not make an exception for is the kind of fine-toothed-combing and navel-lint-cataloguing that is going on surrounding these issues. Stories with titles like "People don't care about these stories anymore" are great examples of what isn't a new and interesting phenomenon. I definitely grant that some of this is desired. I think you and others should grant that some of it is not desired.

tehwalrus 13y ago

Apologies, I didn't realise the guidelines officially discourage "most politics". I do appreciate that people who are not political geeks are probably enjoying the ongoing Snowden stories a lot less than me! I'm still going to keep upvoting them though, I'm afraid. EDITED: I said "prohibited," but they're guidelines, so switched to "discourage".

fusiongyro 13y ago
Vote your conscience and so will I.

angersock 13y ago

Pay closer attention, sir--this isn't American politics writ large, but a small section of issues that has deep and far-reaching consequences for our customers, our businesses, and (without meaning to sound too grandiose) nothing less than the future of privacy and exploratory computing. This is exactly the sort of useful stuff I'd like to see here.

fusiongyro 13y ago
Sure. And I don't object to a few articles with a lot of meat. But what I don't need is every pundit's reaction, to see every breaking story about which company cooperated and which did not, followed by a story summarizing the tally, followed by two reactions to the summary from two more pundits, followed by a guy who has a bone to pick with one of them, followed by a new revelation about a fifteenth company, ... The guidelines clearly make an exception for new, interesting stories that have wide-reaching consequences. I agree and am glad that I found out here about the major abuses, the amendment and the more recent bill. That's four stories of real value. What the guidelines do not make an exception for is the kind of fine-toothed-combing and navel-lint-cataloguing that is going on surrounding these issues. Stories with titles like "People don't care about these stories anymore" are great examples of what isn't a new and interesting phenomenon. I definitely grant that some of this is desired. I think you and others should grant that some of it is not desired.