[saaaaaam]

I’m curious to know why you thought it “sounded like this was a protest project ‘for the people’”?

I’ve read the parent post above and looked at the website and see nothing that would make me think it’s a “protest for the people”.

It just seems a little strange when you then go on to say “strive to address… what was said, not what you imagine the other person said”.

[Lutger]

I had the same thought. This is why:

- 'I created a similar website', so it compares to https://pricewatcher.gr/en/.

- a big part of the discussion is in the context of inflation and price gouging

- pricewatcher presents its data publicly for all consumers to see and use, it is clearly intended as a tool for consumers to combat price gouging strategies

- 'pricewatcher.gr is an independent site which is not endorsed by any shop', nothing suggests this website is making money off consumers

- the 'similar website' however is offering exclusive access to data to businesses, at a price, in order for those business to undercut the competition and become more profitable

So the goals are almost opposite. One is to help consumers combat price gouging of supermarkets, the other is to help supermarkets become (even) more profitable. It is similar in the sense that it is also scraping data, but it's not strange to think being similar would mean they would have the same goal, which they don't.

[latexr]

> I’m curious to know why you thought it “sounded like this was a protest project ‘for the people’”?

See the sibling reply by another user, which I think explains it perfectly.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41179628

> It just seems a little strange when you then go on to say “strive to address… what was said, not what you imagine the other person said”.

It’s not strange at all if you pay attention to the words. I did not mischaracterise the author or their goals, I explained what I expected and what I felt regarding what I experienced reading the post and then the website.

In other words, I’m not attacking or criticising the author. I’m offering one data point, one description of an outside view which they’re free to ignore or think about. That’s it.

Don’t take every reply as an explicit agreement or disagreement. Points can be nuanced, you just have to make a genuine effort to understand. Default to not assuming the other person is a complete dolt. Or don’t. It’s also anyone’s prerogative to be immediately reactive. That’s becoming ever more prevalent (online and offline), and in my view it’s a negative way to live.

[saaaaaam]

I would argue that you imagined something that the other person said - in this context, the other website. This is why your "strive to address... what was said, not what you imagine the other person said" comment sits uneasily for me.

I'm not sure if your highly condescending and somewhat reactive tone is intended or not, perhaps it's satirical, but in case you are unaware, your tone is highly condescending. Saying things like "if you pay attention to the words" and "you just have to make a genuine effort to understand" and your didactic "default to this" comes across rather badly.

[latexr]

Respectfully, I don’t relish the idea of wasting more time failing to impart the difference between criticism and expressing personal disappointment. It is possible to dislike something without thinking that thing or its author are bad. Not everything is about taking a side. We used to be able to understand that.

My tone did succumb to the frustration of having the point be repeatedly strawmanned (you’ll have to turn on show dead to see every instance), which is worryingly becoming more common on HN. I accept and thank you for calling that out. While in general I appreciate HN’s simple interface, it makes it easy to miss when the person we’re talking to on a new reply is not the same as before, so I apologise for any negativity you felt from me.

I may still see your reply to this (no promises) but forgive me if I don’t reply further.