I've never been very impressed by this guy's blog posts, but have a couple of times fell prey to one of his link-bait headlines.
In this post though he pretty much seals the deal for ensuring I won't bother with any more of his content.
He is a self-admitted non-HN participant and appears to pay the community little mind. Yet, having a submission of one of his articles posted to, then killed off of, HN seems significant enough that he has to write a whole new blog post filled with his speculation and thin hypothesis of the event.
Both this post and the one it links to are highly speculative. The headlines are link-bait and the analysis is paper-thin and overly emotionally driven.
I find his emotional, link-bait titled speculation that we "censor articles because they disagree with the content" a hilarious bit of meta-humor.
I don't want to bash the guy but when he writes: To suggest anything else is patently absurd. it just rubs me the wrong way. If he really thinks it's absurd anyone would disagree with his opinion there's no point in trying to have a discussion. The story he wrote about Apple fearing the killer app was thought provoking and didn't slam the door in the face of anyone who might not agree with him. It got a lot of good discussion here.
imo not knowing about the flagging feature doesn't remove anyone's credibility. Btw we do have a lack of transparency with regard to the criteria for killing posts. He says it got 10 upvotes, do you know how many people flagged it ?
imo it is not unreasonable for him to say "the fact that apparently they censor articles because they disagree with the content is incredible."
Note that I don't know who he is, which post got killed, why it was killed etc. and I'm not making judgments on whether it should have been killed or not.
7 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 28.2 ms ] threadIn other words, flagging a submission is like an App Store rejection.
In this post though he pretty much seals the deal for ensuring I won't bother with any more of his content.
He is a self-admitted non-HN participant and appears to pay the community little mind. Yet, having a submission of one of his articles posted to, then killed off of, HN seems significant enough that he has to write a whole new blog post filled with his speculation and thin hypothesis of the event.
I find his emotional, link-bait titled speculation that we "censor articles because they disagree with the content" a hilarious bit of meta-humor.
imo not knowing about the flagging feature doesn't remove anyone's credibility. Btw we do have a lack of transparency with regard to the criteria for killing posts. He says it got 10 upvotes, do you know how many people flagged it ? imo it is not unreasonable for him to say "the fact that apparently they censor articles because they disagree with the content is incredible."
Note that I don't know who he is, which post got killed, why it was killed etc. and I'm not making judgments on whether it should have been killed or not.
Gave this article a sympathy upvote. Hope that helps a little.