[untitled]
22 comments
Even if it was initially on-topic, a critical mass of people might decide -- "this is sending attention and discussion in degrading directions" -- and flag. I have flagged things at times only after seeing the discussion.
I am distressed by the (seemingly new) policy where no comments are allowed on [dead] topics. Even if something's kill-worthy, interested people should be able to finish conversations. Also, as some topics go back and forth between [dead], there needs to be some way to discuss borderline cases. On the topic itself is better than followup stories (like this one).
I am distressed by the (seemingly new) policy where no comments are allowed on [dead] topics. Even if something's kill-worthy, interested people should be able to finish conversations. Also, as some topics go back and forth between [dead], there needs to be some way to discuss borderline cases. On the topic itself is better than followup stories (like this one).
It was probably flagged because it's a little ridiculous. Those companies are not Michael Arrington's bosses. They are advertisers trying to reach a certain market, the type of market that reads TechCrunch.
I don't think it's fair to shame these people for conducting business and attempting to bring in customers. Are they suppose to pull their advertising every time TC posts a controversial article? They're ads would barely show up at all.
I don't think it's fair to shame these people for conducting business and attempting to bring in customers. Are they suppose to pull their advertising every time TC posts a controversial article? They're ads would barely show up at all.
I may be wrong, but I believe the page is not suggesting a temporary TechCrunch boycott by advertisers. While I agree that advertisers are not Arrington's boss, they do have more leverage than your average commenter (as the linked page says, "A note to the people paying Techcrunch's bills can make a big difference. They care what their customers think."). The attention-grabbing "wall of shame" phrasing makes this a little hard to parse.
For people upset about the Twitter leak, convincing the advertisers to support their idea doesn't sound crazy. So, I disagree that the page is ridiculous.
I'm a big fan of not seeing stories if HN's users don't think they are interesting (go social web!), and I don't think the original link was interesting.
For people upset about the Twitter leak, convincing the advertisers to support their idea doesn't sound crazy. So, I disagree that the page is ridiculous.
I'm a big fan of not seeing stories if HN's users don't think they are interesting (go social web!), and I don't think the original link was interesting.
I don't think it's crazy, and I don't think it's completely ridiculous either. The shaming part is what bothered me. The idea that these companies belong on wall of shame is (just a little) ridiculous.
I kind of wish it hadn't been flagged too. I didn't catch it until this second posting. Now that I look back at the HN post, it looks like I'm rehashing some of that conversation.
I kind of wish it hadn't been flagged too. I didn't catch it until this second posting. Now that I look back at the HN post, it looks like I'm rehashing some of that conversation.
Just deal with it.
If you hang around long enough, you're going to get articles flagged and marked dead. If enough people in the community flag an article, because they think it's off topic, it disappears.
I didn't flag it, but I think it was off topic, because it's advocacy and not necessarily hacker interest. It causes drama and doesn't really contribute to the conversation.
By the way, I think this post itself is off topic. From the HN Guidelines: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. source: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you hang around long enough, you're going to get articles flagged and marked dead. If enough people in the community flag an article, because they think it's off topic, it disappears.
I didn't flag it, but I think it was off topic, because it's advocacy and not necessarily hacker interest. It causes drama and doesn't really contribute to the conversation.
By the way, I think this post itself is off topic. From the HN Guidelines: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. source: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Are we really debating this with 23 points?
It wasn't exposing anything at all. You can go to techcrunch.com and find the advertisers. It amazes me how fast all of you criticize TechCrunch as being a piece of shit, yet it is the top domain here which everyone constantly upvotes: http://top.searchyc.com/domains . Feel free to criticize what they did with the twitter docs, but people are justifying it with silly comments like "TC is Perezhilton" or "Fuck techcrunch". It's also a site that most startups here would love to get on. Lastly, as a whole I'm quite sure TechCrunch has made the startup world a better place, and we'd rather have it than not have it.
Hacker News isn't a place to bitch and whine about things, especially those with minimal merit. I enjoy coming here because there's tons of intelligent conversation and amazing information to consume. That article brings none of that to the table.
It wasn't exposing anything at all. You can go to techcrunch.com and find the advertisers. It amazes me how fast all of you criticize TechCrunch as being a piece of shit, yet it is the top domain here which everyone constantly upvotes: http://top.searchyc.com/domains . Feel free to criticize what they did with the twitter docs, but people are justifying it with silly comments like "TC is Perezhilton" or "Fuck techcrunch". It's also a site that most startups here would love to get on. Lastly, as a whole I'm quite sure TechCrunch has made the startup world a better place, and we'd rather have it than not have it.
Hacker News isn't a place to bitch and whine about things, especially those with minimal merit. I enjoy coming here because there's tons of intelligent conversation and amazing information to consume. That article brings none of that to the table.
I don't think very many people manually upvote Techcrunch stories, certainly not off the new page. They get on the front page because every single post they make is submitted by multiple users, and double-submission counts as an upvote.
People with rss-scraping auto-submission scripts (free karma if you're first) heap fuel on the fire.
People with rss-scraping auto-submission scripts (free karma if you're first) heap fuel on the fire.
Because it was a linkbait response to a tempest in a teapot-- a waste of space second only a post asking why it was deleted.
Oy. There are days when HN seems determined to jump the shark, and the only reason it doesn't is that the editors heave it back.
Oy. There are days when HN seems determined to jump the shark, and the only reason it doesn't is that the editors heave it back.
It's strange, the ZSCL post from yesterday got flagged/removed too, after it had 100+ upvotes!
It would never happen -- selective journalism and all -- but if those documents leaked were from an advertiser, I wonder if TechCrunch would have posted them.
Probably not. Since they're journalists, the "Chinese wall" could/should apply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Journalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Journalism
I'd say that aggressive flagging and downvoting are the price of HN not becoming like Digg and Reddit. I'm really happy to pay that price, even when I get downvoted.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
It's fascinating from the standpoint of ethics and journalism. Internet journalism to boot. It's fascinating from an IP law perspective, something people here tend to deal with a lot. It's fascinating from the computer security/social engineering perspective. And it's just a fascinating look into Twitter's deepest darkest secrets. It's possibly unethical (I don't think so, but that one's above my pay grade) but even if so it's still very interesting.
The wall of shame link is just a political rant reducing a complex First Amendment issue to a diatribe. It's mean-spirited (though perhaps warranted, depending on your viewpoint, but that's irrelevant here). It's not more interesting or relevant than if it were asking us to boycott Rush Limbaugh's advertisers. It's unlikely to be fruitful. And it's not in any way relevant to the tech topics usually discussed here.