| update >dang: I'm sorry it feels arbitrary. I think we're looking at this from different perspectives and continuing to argue about it will likely only be repetitive. One thing's for sure: if antitrust action against Facebook or other big tech cos does go ahead, it will get thoroughly and repeatedly discussed on HN. So our positions will converge in the long run. I just don't think "candidate says X" is substantive enough to meet the bar—keep in mind that front page space is the scarcest resource on HN, so every important story gets insufficient attention, and whatever story you care most about, it's always going to feel like it's starved for coverage. (I'm sure even Rust hackers feel the same way.) I appreciate your passion on the topic and the fact that you care enough about HN to take time to make a case about it. Daniel >rollingdeep: The only way this has been repetitive is that I have repeated my simple request for you to directly address the specific concerns instead of a general dismissal on your part. If you cared to directly engage the content, this would not be repetitive. Alas, I don’t believe you care about such news even if it is legitimately significant which you have failed demonstrate otherwise. Per my reasonable requests, you haven’t even attempted to directly engage the content and substance, but you have generally dismissed it. I’m afraid because you have no interest in the significance of this kind of news, that the spread of such information is hampered. Do you realize that you are effectively influencing the spread of information, and this news is highly relevant to that and you? Just as Facebook has the power to influence the spread of information, so does HN. I see no reason to hamper/suppress this discussion as you are allowing, except perhaps the suppression of this information/discussion is preferable to you and Y Combinator. On some level there is no guarantee of actual regulatory action without public education and public support of those issues and regulatory actions. Your decisions seem to support obstructing the spread of that information and letting the facts bubble to the surface of public consciousness. Thus I completely disagree with your decisions on a factual basis. |