10 ms·

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 - Apple confirms it's breaking iPhone web apps in the E

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 - Apple confirms it's breaking iPhone web apps in the EU on purpose (techcrunch.com) (815 points / 1 day ago / 766 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 - Apple confirms iOS 17.4 removes Home Screen web apps in the EU (9to5mac.com) (112 points / 1 day ago/ 125 comments)

agust 3y ago
Did this just get marked as dupe to pull it off the front page? How outrageous. The link has not been posted before.
- anon373839 3y ago
  This was a new article and the focus of the discussion was different.
- szasamasa 3y ago
  and they changed my title not just the link was new from open web advocacy, I also posted actually a piece to try to have a more focused and deep conversation so they changed my original title that was actually funny and to the point, marked as duplicate and so the writer of the article from open web advocacy and my article-like comment was shadow banned, thanks!
  - firtoz 3y ago
    The title does need to match the one within the website
    - szasamasa 3y ago
      apparently my former title was too much for this site: "iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B App Store Tax" which was relating to the article (and you can read the title of the original article after clicking) but I did not like "kills web apps" because it is not true in my opinion, tries to kill web apps or fights against them or cripples them in the next iOS release... it sounded too eternal and I think Apple will be forced by DMA to do the opposite I really am curiouos why and who did my creativity bother?
      - nickthegreek 3y ago
        Your creativity is against the rules. You must submit with original title if it fits the character length.
      - szasamasa 3y ago
        I found guidelines not rules: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." For me, "kill web apps" is misleading since we have to wait and see how the EU reacts. The original title is more of a clickbait. I am not a power user of hacker news. I found a title to fill in and did my best. Had I seen there a link to the guidelines or a text like: please use original title if possible, I would have done it. It is actually 1 minute "site engineering" to mention this on the submission page.
        firtoz 3y ago
        It's alright, you know now for your next submission. Regarding the dupe removal: I am slightly inclined towards your side, because it's not really a dupe, but, still I understand where the mods are coming from, especially if a good amount of discussion already happened around the same topic recently.
        szasamasa 3y ago
        yeah it was re-duped so... it was halfway duplicated actually next submission will be just the article title :) I found my peace with it (and read the guidelines) I think I was a little bit also paranoid... but others reacted actually first and I thought I was some kind of a victim which was not true at all so peace! :)
        dang 3y ago
        (I'm a moderator here.) The title you submitted ("iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close to 100B App Store Tax") broke that guideline badly. It's standard moderation practice to revert titles when submitters do this. If you felt the original title was misleading, then it would have been correct to change it, but definitely not by editorializing and making it more baity. On HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special rights over the title—I know other forums work differently, but this is an important point to understand about this one. It's also standard moderation practice to downweight follow-up stories when a major ongoing topic has already had significant discussion recently, as this one has. We can argue about whether or not the story should have been formally marked a [dupe], but the basic moderation call to downweight it as a follow-up thread was, again, the standard one. Otherwise HN's front page would routinely be filled with follow-up discussions of the same few topics—whichever ones are most controversial that week—and that is not the site we're trying to have here. It's not a problem, of course, that you were inexperienced with how HN works and broke the rules by accident. HN can be a cryptic place and it can take a while to get oriented. What's not fine, though, is posting indignant comments complaining about how you've been mistreated by what is in fact ordinary practice. Such meta drama is off-topic in the threads and has a way of taking over discussion if allowed to, so please don't do it again. Also, while I have you: please don't attack other users as you did here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39410740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39410740. That's definitely not allowed, as should be clear from reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and you can make your substantive points without it. You're welcome on HN! Just please make sure not to post in the flamewar style to HN threads. Again, I know other forums work differently, but we're trying for thoughtful, curious conversation here, and flamewar destroys that, so that's the most important thing to avoid while commenting.
- throwaway49849 3y ago
  It's funny that this post is considered dupes of those 2, but those 2 are not dupes of each other.
  - dang 3y ago
    That's actually normal, because https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 only spent about half an hour on HN's front page, so it arguably didn't make sense to treat the next one https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 as a dupe. Keep in mind the criterion for dupeage: has the story had significant attention yet? One can argue that this story was major enough that half an hour of front page time wasn't significant, even though the thread did get 100 comments. The second submission, however, spent 16 hours on HN's front page and got over 800 comments. That clearly qualifies as the story having significant attention, meaning that it was both standard and correct to downweight the current submission. The only question is whether it should have been formally marked [dupe] or merely downweighted as a follow-up (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=follow-up%20downweight&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), but we don't have precise rules around that.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Dupes are not just for the exact same URL. This topic has gotten a lot of attention on the frontpage, and there's no significant new information in this article.
  - szasamasa 3y ago
    then why did it get so many comments? you seem to be protecting people from discussing what they want to discuss in addition, I wrote 2 first comments asking people to focus on a deeper conversation and my focus was both in my forcefully changed title and in my first article-like comment that what is actually happening is attacking web capabilities the first 2 comments were mine, an article and an ask towards the community to discuss things on a higher level (tech, legal) and forget these emotional outbursts that I hate pwa and I just dont want you to install another browser and that oh I love my walled garden because peopel just can use Safari with its protections even if my thread was also flooded with not too deep comments, I think shadow banning was uncalled for! nobody changed the misleading title here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386569 dma did not kill anything whereas my title true: I am pissed, Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B tax revenue
    - jsnell 3y ago
      A submission getting comments isn't automatically a sign that it should be on the frontpage. Anything controversial or outrageous is likely to get a lot of comments any time it makes the frontpage. The really insidious part is that unlike the really interesting submissions which are one offs, these topics are being fed by a news cycle and a content treadmill, with a steady stream of new articles mostly rehashing the same information. So they tend to crowd To use this article as an example, you say you want to see a higher level discussion about the legal and technical aspects. A proper legal review of Apple's DMA position vs. the actual regulation text would definitely be fascinating to read and new information we haven't already seen multiple times. I'd totally upvote that. Maybe there's even a chance that such an article would lead to the higher level discussion you ask for. But it doesn't feel like that's at all what the article is? There's no analysis, just an assertion that this breaks the spirit and the letter of the law. (I don't know anything about the various grivances you listed. I was just replying to agust since they were under the false impression that dupes were only for exact submissions of the same article.)
szasamasa 3y ago
the article I posted was from: https://open-web-advocacy.org/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/ and I wrote a nice article-ish piece myself, trying to get above "I want my walled garden" and "everybody hates pwa" comments you find under those links above... but I guess you had your reasons!

agust 3y ago

Did this just get marked as dupe to pull it off the front page? How outrageous. The link has not been posted before.

anon373839 3y ago
This was a new article and the focus of the discussion was different.
szasamasa 3y ago
and they changed my title not just the link was new from open web advocacy, I also posted actually a piece to try to have a more focused and deep conversation so they changed my original title that was actually funny and to the point, marked as duplicate and so the writer of the article from open web advocacy and my article-like comment was shadow banned, thanks!
- firtoz 3y ago
  The title does need to match the one within the website
  - szasamasa 3y ago
    apparently my former title was too much for this site: "iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B App Store Tax" which was relating to the article (and you can read the title of the original article after clicking) but I did not like "kills web apps" because it is not true in my opinion, tries to kill web apps or fights against them or cripples them in the next iOS release... it sounded too eternal and I think Apple will be forced by DMA to do the opposite I really am curiouos why and who did my creativity bother?
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      Your creativity is against the rules. You must submit with original title if it fits the character length.
    - szasamasa 3y ago
      I found guidelines not rules: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." For me, "kill web apps" is misleading since we have to wait and see how the EU reacts. The original title is more of a clickbait. I am not a power user of hacker news. I found a title to fill in and did my best. Had I seen there a link to the guidelines or a text like: please use original title if possible, I would have done it. It is actually 1 minute "site engineering" to mention this on the submission page.
      - firtoz 3y ago
        It's alright, you know now for your next submission. Regarding the dupe removal: I am slightly inclined towards your side, because it's not really a dupe, but, still I understand where the mods are coming from, especially if a good amount of discussion already happened around the same topic recently.
        szasamasa 3y ago
        yeah it was re-duped so... it was halfway duplicated actually next submission will be just the article title :) I found my peace with it (and read the guidelines) I think I was a little bit also paranoid... but others reacted actually first and I thought I was some kind of a victim which was not true at all so peace! :)
      - dang 3y ago
        (I'm a moderator here.) The title you submitted ("iPissed: Apple is after web capabilities to protect close to 100B App Store Tax") broke that guideline badly. It's standard moderation practice to revert titles when submitters do this. If you felt the original title was misleading, then it would have been correct to change it, but definitely not by editorializing and making it more baity. On HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special rights over the title—I know other forums work differently, but this is an important point to understand about this one. It's also standard moderation practice to downweight follow-up stories when a major ongoing topic has already had significant discussion recently, as this one has. We can argue about whether or not the story should have been formally marked a [dupe], but the basic moderation call to downweight it as a follow-up thread was, again, the standard one. Otherwise HN's front page would routinely be filled with follow-up discussions of the same few topics—whichever ones are most controversial that week—and that is not the site we're trying to have here. It's not a problem, of course, that you were inexperienced with how HN works and broke the rules by accident. HN can be a cryptic place and it can take a while to get oriented. What's not fine, though, is posting indignant comments complaining about how you've been mistreated by what is in fact ordinary practice. Such meta drama is off-topic in the threads and has a way of taking over discussion if allowed to, so please don't do it again. Also, while I have you: please don't attack other users as you did here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39410740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39410740. That's definitely not allowed, as should be clear from reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and you can make your substantive points without it. You're welcome on HN! Just please make sure not to post in the flamewar style to HN threads. Again, I know other forums work differently, but we're trying for thoughtful, curious conversation here, and flamewar destroys that, so that's the most important thing to avoid while commenting.
throwaway49849 3y ago
It's funny that this post is considered dupes of those 2, but those 2 are not dupes of each other.
- dang 3y ago
  That's actually normal, because https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386244 only spent about half an hour on HN's front page, so it arguably didn't make sense to treat the next one https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388218 as a dupe. Keep in mind the criterion for dupeage: has the story had significant attention yet? One can argue that this story was major enough that half an hour of front page time wasn't significant, even though the thread did get 100 comments. The second submission, however, spent 16 hours on HN's front page and got over 800 comments. That clearly qualifies as the story having significant attention, meaning that it was both standard and correct to downweight the current submission. The only question is whether it should have been formally marked [dupe] or merely downweighted as a follow-up (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=follow-up%20downweight&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), but we don't have precise rules around that.
jsnell 3y ago
Dupes are not just for the exact same URL. This topic has gotten a lot of attention on the frontpage, and there's no significant new information in this article.
- szasamasa 3y ago
  then why did it get so many comments? you seem to be protecting people from discussing what they want to discuss in addition, I wrote 2 first comments asking people to focus on a deeper conversation and my focus was both in my forcefully changed title and in my first article-like comment that what is actually happening is attacking web capabilities the first 2 comments were mine, an article and an ask towards the community to discuss things on a higher level (tech, legal) and forget these emotional outbursts that I hate pwa and I just dont want you to install another browser and that oh I love my walled garden because peopel just can use Safari with its protections even if my thread was also flooded with not too deep comments, I think shadow banning was uncalled for! nobody changed the misleading title here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386569 dma did not kill anything whereas my title true: I am pissed, Apple is after web capabilities to protect close-to-100B tax revenue
  - jsnell 3y ago
    A submission getting comments isn't automatically a sign that it should be on the frontpage. Anything controversial or outrageous is likely to get a lot of comments any time it makes the frontpage. The really insidious part is that unlike the really interesting submissions which are one offs, these topics are being fed by a news cycle and a content treadmill, with a steady stream of new articles mostly rehashing the same information. So they tend to crowd To use this article as an example, you say you want to see a higher level discussion about the legal and technical aspects. A proper legal review of Apple's DMA position vs. the actual regulation text would definitely be fascinating to read and new information we haven't already seen multiple times. I'd totally upvote that. Maybe there's even a chance that such an article would lead to the higher level discussion you ask for. But it doesn't feel like that's at all what the article is? There's no analysis, just an assertion that this breaks the spirit and the letter of the law. (I don't know anything about the various grivances you listed. I was just replying to agust since they were under the false impression that dupes were only for exact submissions of the same article.)

szasamasa 3y ago

the article I posted was from: https://open-web-advocacy.org/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/ and I wrote a nice article-ish piece myself, trying to get above "I want my walled garden" and "everybody hates pwa" comments you find under those links above... but I guess you had your reasons!