6 ms·
That's disappointing to me. That means this new tool, which would have had a nearly non-existent impact on normal use, will only be deployed once the damage is
by waterlesscloud 13y ago
That's disappointing to me. That means this new tool, which would have had a nearly non-existent impact on normal use, will only be deployed once the damage is done.
Instead of pro-active moderation by a crowd, we have reactive moderation by a few. I doubt it will have much positive impact at this point.
I'm also disappointed in the way most posters have reacted to this change, waving their arms around as if the world is going to end. Here, even in this subthread people are saying it would have ended the way they used HN. It would have done no such thing.
I know I shouldn't be surprised at how badly people react to the smallest changes, but I did think this group might be different.
Still, I'm going to keep this very conservative reaction from HN in mind next time someone is saying an industry who had their entire business model disrupted should just "deal with it".
There's also depressingly little faith in our fellow HNers to be able to moderate fairly. And that really is sad.
- ama729 13y ago> which would have had a nearly non-existent impact on normal use Then don't you think it would have been a bit useless? "Normal use" does tend to include wrong comment. (Which have their utility, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law ) @PG: Thanks for the change.