6 ms·

what's the difference? It was upvoted to the main page then flagging boots it off right? and why did you flag it if you don't mind me asking?

tptacek 10y ago
It makes an argument I agree with but have read in dozens of other places, and makes it in an insufferable tone. It's written in such a way that it will generate a horrible thread here. Some topics are worth long arguments on HN, but the Nth take on why Thiel vs Gawker is ominous isn't one of them.
- codybrown 10y ago
  ah. just see you edited your comment here. glad you agree w/ the argument.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
codybrown 10y ago
lol. where else have you read this argument tptacek?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Are you honestly suggesting you think you might be the first person to write a piece on the implications of billionaires destroying media outlets they disagree with in the wake of the Gawker verdict? By the way, if you're going to respond to answers to questions you asked with "lol", then yes, I do mind you asking.
- codybrown 10y ago
  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.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    A. Yes, I did read the piece. B. Because you asked me that, this will be the last comment I write about it. Don't ask people whether they've read things they're commenting on. I think it's a pretty silly piece that starts with an assumption that everyone in tech must side with Thiel and ends with pearl clutching. You asked. Now you know what I think and why I flagged it. I'm just one of many people who did that, and those are just my reasons. Hope that's helpful.
    - codybrown 10y ago
      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.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        No, I didn't.

tptacek 10y ago

It makes an argument I agree with but have read in dozens of other places, and makes it in an insufferable tone. It's written in such a way that it will generate a horrible thread here. Some topics are worth long arguments on HN, but the Nth take on why Thiel vs Gawker is ominous isn't one of them.

codybrown 10y ago
ah. just see you edited your comment here. glad you agree w/ the argument.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

codybrown 10y ago

lol. where else have you read this argument tptacek?

tptacek 10y ago
Are you honestly suggesting you think you might be the first person to write a piece on the implications of billionaires destroying media outlets they disagree with in the wake of the Gawker verdict? By the way, if you're going to respond to answers to questions you asked with "lol", then yes, I do mind you asking.
codybrown 10y ago
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.
- tptacek 10y ago
  A. Yes, I did read the piece. B. Because you asked me that, this will be the last comment I write about it. Don't ask people whether they've read things they're commenting on. I think it's a pretty silly piece that starts with an assumption that everyone in tech must side with Thiel and ends with pearl clutching. You asked. Now you know what I think and why I flagged it. I'm just one of many people who did that, and those are just my reasons. Hope that's helpful.
  - codybrown 10y ago
    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.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, I didn't.