5 ms·

Looks like she doesn't want this to be posted here. https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459673982149877760 https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459673

by id 12y ago

Looks like she doesn't want this to be posted here. https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459673982149877760 https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459673982149877760

4ad 12y ago
Then why does she put it on the Internet for everyone to see?
- smileysteve 12y ago
  To be callous, that's the question I feel about the entirety of the story. The bullying is horrible, but the solution seems to be a tiny bit of anonymity. - start texting you and calling you (at all [distracting] times) making your primary number useless? Get a new number. In 2004, not everybody had cell phones (or especially texting plans) If a cell phone loses its utility of being a tool, then ditch it. - Messaging on Hotmail This is [the known attacker version of] why many parents concern their kids with not being searchable or using their real name. Don't have your real age or name on hotmail. Further, don't accept unauthenticated im friendships and give out private information. - Blog comments How did they know her URL, if not just for her class? Is the easy solution to just not allow comments, or at least require authorization to post comments?
rickyc091 12y ago
She probably wants to avoid comments such as "she's a liar, this didn't happen, etc."
arethuza 12y ago
Ouch - maybe we should all flag this then?
dtf 12y ago
Probably just expecting the usual dumb comments: "Thanks, it's ok. It seems to be being moderated well for once. And I can take any stupid comments these days." https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459677447404138496 https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459677447404138496
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- thomasz 12y ago
  > All my sympathy for her just instantly evaporated. Wat? Why!?
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    If people don't want something to be linked to by people who find it interesting, they shouldn't post it on the public internet. Harsh but true.
    - srpablo 12y ago
      Here's what you said, but with some context you missed: > If people don't want something to be linked to by a particular community of people who historically dismiss or question accounts of abuse, people who are perfectly happy to ignore their wishes and desires not to have it posted there, they shouldn't post it on the public internet.
      - hobs 12y ago
        I think what happened to the author is horrible, but yeah, even this. The internet is awash with different good, bad, crazy, wrong, stupid, hilarious, weird, and batshit insane ideas and places where people can say anything they want. If you post an article they may even throw a link up and discuss it. I may not enjoy their conversation, so I will not visit that website.
j2kun 12y ago
People go out of their way to block traffic from HackerNews? Why?
- personZ 12y ago
  It is an attempt at controlling the discussion, and the threat of blocking HN is often intended as a way of controlling the site, ala "I don't like the conversation, so until all comments are favorable I will vaguely threaten to block a single site." For those clicking down arrow on this -- am I wrong? In fact, the author said, essentially, exactly this by this backing down from their thin threat, encouraged that everyone is dancing to their tune. Personally I find that simply reprehensible. Instead of moderators saying "oh, better start deleting" when facing claims like this, simply remove the submission and blacklist the domain.
  - dtf 12y ago
    Someone posts a detailed, intimate story about a horrific sequence of personal experiences onto their Twitter timeline, notices that it's been forwarded to HN - which doesn't have the most sensitive of reputations at the best of times - and is momentarily worried about the possible fallout. And you're essentially accusing them of trying to pull a cynical PR move. Have a think about that.
    - personZ 12y ago
      I'm "accusing" them only of doing exactly what they indisputably did. It is sensitive and I applaud them for talking about it and taking control. But when you post something to twitter as a public post, it is a public post and you simply don't have control over the discussion. As someone who grew up with the internet, as they say, they surely understand this. People might be mean. People might point out that "bullies are people too". People might post stupid jokes or asinine comments or talk about it being one side of the story. Avert thy gaze. Geez, when I post technical articles and they get linked here or on Reddit, I don't even read the comments to that because I'm overly sensitive to disagreement. But that disagreement and the normal course of discourse is important, and I understand that I can't suppress it, nor should I. Which is why I noted that when someone says something that the author said, the submission should be removed, as seems to be their desire regardless. The invisible hand of coercion is corrupting. Alternately HN should abide by some sort of robots.txt agreement or something. And just to be clear, instead of simply making the post private or researching how to block sites, they instead called out HN specifically, to exactly the expected results: Lots of navel gazing and people talking about how mean HN is, so we really better keep it civil for them. They withdraw the threat. How can anyone argue that isn't explicit, obvious coercion? To put it another way, the comments on HN are for the service and edification of the members of HN. They are not to serve the interests of the linked content or the people involved. This is a point that so often is missed in these "woe be us" discussions.
CJefferson 12y ago
Wow, it is interesting that I didn't realise there were groups of people who knew enough about Hacker News to care about it, and would go out of their way, including buying ssl certificates and changing solver configs, just to block HN. It is distributing to find somewhere you thought of as a "safe place" seems like such an upsetting place to others. I'm not sure what HN should do about this, but it is a very disturbing turn of events. Perhaps it is time to pack up and leave?
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  It is distributing to find somewhere you thought of as a "safe place" seems like such an upsetting place to others. I'm not sure what HN should do about this, but it is a very disturbing turn of events. Perhaps it is time to pack up and leave? Someone finds HN to be upsetting, this is such a shock, it's time to pack up and leave... Can't say I'm following your line of thought. What, people should stop visiting and/or revamp communities that someone else doesn't like?
  - CJefferson 12y ago
    If someone doesn't like a community, I certainly think it is worth finding out why, and if their opinions have merit. Particularly when in this case (front-end developer, reading the title of Anna's blog), you would hope these would be exactly the kind of people HN would want to attract, both as articles to link to, and people to come and comment.
    - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
      It's kind of futile to expect to reach some equilibrium where all people who have title X are attracted to HN's community.
- Windwaker 12y ago
  HN has really hit the limelight as of late.
- adamors 12y ago
morgante 12y ago
Do people actually try to block sites from linking to them? That's as bad as the AP trying to charge people for links years ago.[1] It's just fundamentally against the nature of the internet: you don't get to control who links to you. That being said, I have sympathy for experience and could absolutely see why she might be disturbed by the (potential) HN response. Probably the best solution in such cases is to not post the article, or to protect it with a password. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2008/06/16/heres-our-new-policy-on-ap-stories-theyre-banned/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/06/16/heres-our-new-policy-on-ap-...

by id 12y ago

Looks like she doesn't want this to be posted here. https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459673982149877760 https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459673982149877760

4ad 12y ago

Then why does she put it on the Internet for everyone to see?

smileysteve 12y ago
To be callous, that's the question I feel about the entirety of the story. The bullying is horrible, but the solution seems to be a tiny bit of anonymity. - start texting you and calling you (at all [distracting] times) making your primary number useless? Get a new number. In 2004, not everybody had cell phones (or especially texting plans) If a cell phone loses its utility of being a tool, then ditch it. - Messaging on Hotmail This is [the known attacker version of] why many parents concern their kids with not being searchable or using their real name. Don't have your real age or name on hotmail. Further, don't accept unauthenticated im friendships and give out private information. - Blog comments How did they know her URL, if not just for her class? Is the easy solution to just not allow comments, or at least require authorization to post comments?

rickyc091 12y ago

She probably wants to avoid comments such as "she's a liar, this didn't happen, etc."

arethuza 12y ago

Ouch - maybe we should all flag this then?

dtf 12y ago

Probably just expecting the usual dumb comments: "Thanks, it's ok. It seems to be being moderated well for once. And I can take any stupid comments these days." https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459677447404138496 https://twitter.com/anna_debenham/status/459677447404138496

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

thomasz 12y ago
> All my sympathy for her just instantly evaporated. Wat? Why!?
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  If people don't want something to be linked to by people who find it interesting, they shouldn't post it on the public internet. Harsh but true.
  - srpablo 12y ago
    Here's what you said, but with some context you missed: > If people don't want something to be linked to by a particular community of people who historically dismiss or question accounts of abuse, people who are perfectly happy to ignore their wishes and desires not to have it posted there, they shouldn't post it on the public internet.
    - hobs 12y ago
      I think what happened to the author is horrible, but yeah, even this. The internet is awash with different good, bad, crazy, wrong, stupid, hilarious, weird, and batshit insane ideas and places where people can say anything they want. If you post an article they may even throw a link up and discuss it. I may not enjoy their conversation, so I will not visit that website.

j2kun 12y ago

People go out of their way to block traffic from HackerNews? Why?

personZ 12y ago
It is an attempt at controlling the discussion, and the threat of blocking HN is often intended as a way of controlling the site, ala "I don't like the conversation, so until all comments are favorable I will vaguely threaten to block a single site." For those clicking down arrow on this -- am I wrong? In fact, the author said, essentially, exactly this by this backing down from their thin threat, encouraged that everyone is dancing to their tune. Personally I find that simply reprehensible. Instead of moderators saying "oh, better start deleting" when facing claims like this, simply remove the submission and blacklist the domain.
- dtf 12y ago
  Someone posts a detailed, intimate story about a horrific sequence of personal experiences onto their Twitter timeline, notices that it's been forwarded to HN - which doesn't have the most sensitive of reputations at the best of times - and is momentarily worried about the possible fallout. And you're essentially accusing them of trying to pull a cynical PR move. Have a think about that.
  - personZ 12y ago
    I'm "accusing" them only of doing exactly what they indisputably did. It is sensitive and I applaud them for talking about it and taking control. But when you post something to twitter as a public post, it is a public post and you simply don't have control over the discussion. As someone who grew up with the internet, as they say, they surely understand this. People might be mean. People might point out that "bullies are people too". People might post stupid jokes or asinine comments or talk about it being one side of the story. Avert thy gaze. Geez, when I post technical articles and they get linked here or on Reddit, I don't even read the comments to that because I'm overly sensitive to disagreement. But that disagreement and the normal course of discourse is important, and I understand that I can't suppress it, nor should I. Which is why I noted that when someone says something that the author said, the submission should be removed, as seems to be their desire regardless. The invisible hand of coercion is corrupting. Alternately HN should abide by some sort of robots.txt agreement or something. And just to be clear, instead of simply making the post private or researching how to block sites, they instead called out HN specifically, to exactly the expected results: Lots of navel gazing and people talking about how mean HN is, so we really better keep it civil for them. They withdraw the threat. How can anyone argue that isn't explicit, obvious coercion? To put it another way, the comments on HN are for the service and edification of the members of HN. They are not to serve the interests of the linked content or the people involved. This is a point that so often is missed in these "woe be us" discussions.

CJefferson 12y ago

Wow, it is interesting that I didn't realise there were groups of people who knew enough about Hacker News to care about it, and would go out of their way, including buying ssl certificates and changing solver configs, just to block HN. It is distributing to find somewhere you thought of as a "safe place" seems like such an upsetting place to others. I'm not sure what HN should do about this, but it is a very disturbing turn of events. Perhaps it is time to pack up and leave?

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
It is distributing to find somewhere you thought of as a "safe place" seems like such an upsetting place to others. I'm not sure what HN should do about this, but it is a very disturbing turn of events. Perhaps it is time to pack up and leave? Someone finds HN to be upsetting, this is such a shock, it's time to pack up and leave... Can't say I'm following your line of thought. What, people should stop visiting and/or revamp communities that someone else doesn't like?
- CJefferson 12y ago
  If someone doesn't like a community, I certainly think it is worth finding out why, and if their opinions have merit. Particularly when in this case (front-end developer, reading the title of Anna's blog), you would hope these would be exactly the kind of people HN would want to attract, both as articles to link to, and people to come and comment.
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    It's kind of futile to expect to reach some equilibrium where all people who have title X are attracted to HN's community.
Windwaker 12y ago
HN has really hit the limelight as of late.
adamors 12y ago

morgante 12y ago

Do people actually try to block sites from linking to them? That's as bad as the AP trying to charge people for links years ago.[1] It's just fundamentally against the nature of the internet: you don't get to control who links to you. That being said, I have sympathy for experience and could absolutely see why she might be disturbed by the (potential) HN response. Probably the best solution in such cases is to not post the article, or to protect it with a password. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2008/06/16/heres-our-new-policy-on-ap-stories-theyre-banned/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/06/16/heres-our-new-policy-on-ap-...