I just did a search and nearly every piece, with even a minor tinge of support for Gawker's side, has been 'flagged'.
You say this doesn't go very deep but where has there been a good, substantive discussion on Hacker News about the implications of Thiel's lawsuit? the darker precedent it sets? This issue is important to the tech world, it cuts to the heart of many aspects of this industry and some of the most foundational aspects of our law.
You're right that other communities get value from discussing this argument. There are smart people here, and this piece has been submitted 9 times. It's a shame that a small group can shut down this discussion from happening. As much as I hoped it wouldn't, it makes the point of the piece.
lol. you edited your original comment to say you actually agree w/ the piece but flagged it because you said you've seen it elsewhere (but don't provide links).
I guess it was stupid to expect Hacker News to have a discussion about this argument (instead of, once again, evading it) but that's how it goes.
Thx for, atleast, sharing some of your thoughts on this. Usually arguments HN wants to avoid are voted down w/ no reason given.
did you read the piece? this is a specific implication that I haven't seen elsewhere (you have links?). it's a pretty standard prohibitionist argument and I feel like Hacker News could have a substantive discussion about it. I'm not a journalist, I care about this because I'm also in the tech industry.
this post is about what happens if Gawker is destroyed by thiel... if people really don't like gawker, then I really don't think they'll like what is likely to come next. this is a prohibitionist argument and it seems like a good thing for Hacker News to discuss instead of flagging.
hey dang. author here. This is an argument about the darker implications of Thiel's lawsuit on the tech industry. can you point me to a place on Hacker News where there has been a good discussion about this before? I've seen plenty of people rail against gawker, but haven't seen much discussion about what this could lead to. it's a pretty straight forward prohibitionist argument.
I'm the author of this piece. can anyone explain why this piece is flagged? it has been submitted, upvoted to the home page, then banned 3 separate times.
There's a big difference between Apple making their own VR hardware and shipping a computer with a fast enough GPU to run other VR hardware (or ability to have a fast enough GPU via something like the Razer Core).
The latter would be necessary for Apple in the growing VR ecosystem but it could be great for many other areas that require an intensive GPU. And that's the argument of the piece.