This is aphyr's standard policy. https://blog.woof.group/announcements/updates-on-the-osa summarises the reasoning, which basically boils down to "the legislation is broad enough in scope to cover most of what he wants to do online in theory, the guidance about what will happen in practice is nonexistent, the punishments if they choose to go after you are extremely severe, and the costs of complying with the regulation are very onerous, so it's not worth complying", which seems fair enough.
I don't think it is ridiculous to flag topics like this.
The problem is that topics like this are incredibly hard to keep civil, and the "HN factor" ("prominent" people involved chiming in) is not really there, either. It also frequently ends up in the exact same repeated arguments (at best).
Personally, I'm not flagging posts like this and I'm always very happy when the tone stays civil and the discussion interesting, but I can see why people would.
HN merely tries to keep up the appearance of being a place of civil debate and discussion. The bias comes out when the subject matter becomes in any way controversial.
You can say some pretty horrendous things on here as long as you couch them in mealy-mouthed modest-proposal language, while there's almost no recourse for having a good faith rebuttable flagged or down-voted.
In theory, the site moderators are supposed to be a check valve on this kind of abuse, but it's quite sobering to look at the age of some of the accounts who behave badly on HN and yet have somehow passed notice.
I can only assume that the moderators are okay with the company they allow on the site, and I think it's worth taking a look around and asking yourself "Is this place _really_ worth contributing to?"
That seems less likely than insufferably pedantic nerds screaming “off topic!!!! off topic!!!” whenever they see anything that makes them even slightly uncomfortable.
Readit News
I Want You to Understand Chicago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45859402
https://archive.ph/X33oQ
It got flagged, but this is happening and isn’t being talked about because it isn’t happening to people who have influence.
The problem is that topics like this are incredibly hard to keep civil, and the "HN factor" ("prominent" people involved chiming in) is not really there, either. It also frequently ends up in the exact same repeated arguments (at best).
Personally, I'm not flagging posts like this and I'm always very happy when the tone stays civil and the discussion interesting, but I can see why people would.
You can say some pretty horrendous things on here as long as you couch them in mealy-mouthed modest-proposal language, while there's almost no recourse for having a good faith rebuttable flagged or down-voted.
In theory, the site moderators are supposed to be a check valve on this kind of abuse, but it's quite sobering to look at the age of some of the accounts who behave badly on HN and yet have somehow passed notice.
I can only assume that the moderators are okay with the company they allow on the site, and I think it's worth taking a look around and asking yourself "Is this place _really_ worth contributing to?"
Deleted Comment