Comment by dang
10 years ago
You're quoting things I didn't say. The snark-amplification mechanism of putting the most uncharitable spin you can possibly think of on someone's remarks is one of the worsts you can do in comments here. I spend a lot of time asking users not to do it to other users.
Of course the paywalls suck. Is there any user who has to deal with more of these annoyances than we ourselves do? There can't be many.
The question is the lesser of two evils. Anyone who doesn't get what a disaster it would be for HN to lose the NYT, WSJ, Economist, and New Yorker doesn't get HN in the first place.
I think you're over inflating the value of articles that a bunch of people can't read. If this policy is even half consistent, nobody will be able to complain when there are things posted that there is absolutely no workaround for other than paying (or having someone copy and repost). Postings like that absolutely deserve complaint IMO because it punishes those without privilege.
> the value of articles that a bunch of people can't read
"Paywalls with workarounds" means people can read them. Obviously we care about that—we've explicitly let everyone know that users are welcome to help each other do so.
Re value, people disagree about value judgments but someone has to make the call, and it's the same now as it has always been.
I can at least tell you what it's based on: HN wants to maximize the quality of the articles on the front page and the quality of the comments in the threads. Sites like the NYT and the New Yorker increase the former. Repetitive complaining about paywalls reduces the latter. Hence the above.
With articles like NYT taking the place of an article without a paywall (the front page has limited real estate), all you know is that NYT articles result in crappy discussions because users have difficulty reading the article and rightly complain.
Rather than banning the crappy discussion, why not ban the articles that result in it?
3 replies →
Thanks for the ad hominem response, it really reminds me what's great about this site.
Given that you did put in quotes things that dang didn't say, it sure seemed like dang was describing your actual actions, not saying anything about you or your intentions. (Well, maybe 'snark amplification'.)
I don't think it was ad hominem, but it's possible that I misinterpreted your comment as snarkier than you meant it. If so, I'm sorry.
The ad hominem was "doesn't get HN in the first place". It's very dismissive of people who disagree with you. And it's not the first time you've responded like this.
I don't get it? No, you don't get it.
1 reply →