anoonmoose

"I've had it with social media sites. I thought HN could be a last bastion, then I saw a dude arguing that he wasn't sure tuberculosis was as bad as it's made it out to be and decided it was just as shitty there as everywhere else. I went to delete my account and found out I couldn't, which hilariously strengthened my resolve to delete the account.

I'd say thanks but I think it's extremely stupid that you're making me resort to this method to achieve the desired result that a half dozen other sites had no issue letting me get to without explaining why or waiting in a multi-day queue, so I'll just say, I hope you have a nice day."

I find that fascinating because I deleted a ten-year-old account attached to my Real Name because of how quickly what it showed me degraded after he purchased it. I'd say 80% of that was from the elevation of blue checks to the top of every thread, 10% of it was seeing his dumb-assed tweets no matter how hard I tried to avoid them, and 10% of it was recommending people I absolutely did not want to see.

According to this article, there are more former employees of Twitter suing Twitter, than there are current employees at Twitter. Seems noteworthy!

I didn't say ban, I said remove, not that I think there's much of a difference. I hope they do it too, although I expect for entirely different reasons than you do. Funny to see "Reddit Delenda Est" come full circle in a way.

I think mods might be a bit like members of US Congress. I expect that if you asked redditors if they think the mods on reddit are good, they'd say no...unless you asked them if the mods of the subreddits they use are good, in which case they'd say yes. Not convinced that removing the mods and reactivating the subs will go as well as you seem to.

because they'd also need to remove the mods who made the subs private in the first place lest they just make them private again immediately

and removing those mods would/could/should be perceived as an escalation in this fight that could make the problem worse not better

I mean...something like 70% of subs are private at this moment. I deleted my account before the API changes were announced but it's easy to see that most of the subs I used are still private. I'm trying to get a dedicated server running for a game I started playing and the Google searches I've been doing for answers on some of the settings all return a shitlaod of reddit results I can't access.

Your experience is yours, mine is mine, but given the objective fact of how many subs are currently private, I see no reason to think your experience is typical.

Due to some quirk of when and how I used the Internet, I not only never used Digg but have only really heard of it in relation to the exodus you mentioned. So, interestingly, I don't remember the exodus but I also feel like people talk about Digg.com all the time (as a cautionary tale).

I also came here to comment on that word choice. It's disgusting to activate a clause of a contract that both parties agreed to, when neither party seems to have a substantial power imbalance relative to the other? Seems pretty odd to me.

No, what you said was, you think the world would be better off if 6.9B people were dead and you were one of the remaining 100M. And what I'm saying is, those two statements are not very different.

If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.

You said there should be 6.9 billion less people on the planet and when asked if you'd be one of the 0.1 billion remaining people you said yes and basically acknowledged you'd already said too much. If that's what you left up, I shudder at whatever this [1] might have been

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166458

It's a 32-day-old account named after the bad guy from a Star Wars movie. I'd be suspicious of them before even reading the comment, which was fairly bonkers. As for substantive rebuttal of their statements, others have already done it elsewhere in the thread.

edit: YIKES https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166300

They'll get replaced faster than they otherwise would have

Not to re-start a five-day old flamewar but the discussion you linked to seems pretty divided and my personal opinion is that the answer to your question seems to be "no".

I don't think HN should be trying to associate with people who go out of their way to say that they don't want to associate with HN and to a certain extent I do think that if you don't understand why they don't want to associate with HN that indicates you might have some blind spots about HN. Ain't like they're the first to feel this way (hi jwz)

Kinda hard to compare when some are default subs though

One thing I've been a little surprised by is the idea that, even if the API pricing was reasonable and these apps weren't shutting down, that they wouldn't be heavily and severely impacted by the fact that 3rd party apps will not be able to access NSFW content. Reddit has a LOT of porn on it. Preventing 3rd party apps from accessing that content is a pretty good indicator to me that they're going to completely get rid of that content, eventually. People keep making Digg references, but I'm not sure the real answer won't actually be Tumblr.

As a person who has been using reddit very regularly for about the last ten years...my bet is that Reddit Premium has few to no paid users.

I don't wanna be too cynical but I did look at the accounts of the two people in this thread who seem to find the idea plausible and found...pretty much exactly what I expected to find. So, yeah, I agree with you, lotta JAQing off.

I don't see how one could reasonably say a thing that has happened before and a thing that hasn't happened before are equally plausible explanations for a thing that is currently happening.

I can't particularly agree in this case. I don't think /r/legaladvice is better off having a thousand incorrect, off-topic responses to a question. It was locked when I saw it first and I didn't think that was weird- they usually do that once approximately correct advice has come in but people are still replying. The post being removed surprised me but then again, I don't know that there's really an actionable legal question here, so it was mostly just a lightning rod. And complaining about how people can't behave feels reasonable to me when people aren't following the rules. I got plenty of issues with reddit but I don't actualy agree with any of your complaints here.

The "why not" would be because in some cases the outcome is worse. I agree that ISPs should be common carriers. I disagree that social media sites should be. To me this is analogous to "everyone should be allowed to travel on public property, not everyone should be allowed in my bar".

I think most people would not agree that "private freedom of association" has ended in the US. There are protected classes, you're not allowed to discriminate against someone for their existence as a member of a protected class, but there are definitely still plenty of ways in which I'm allowed to bar people as I see fit (in my locale, "no Biden/Trump supporters allowed" would be legal).

AT&T

Kind of fuzzy. Iirc, land lines no, cell phones yes, Internet yes.

landlord

Probably extremely specific to state/county/town

democrat shorts

Political affiliation is only a protected class in an extremely small number of areas, so most likely, yes

your proposals "censor the freedom of speech" of the organizations you want to control

There's also some weird drama going on over a user complaining about Lyft's response to an issue, and then Lyft responding to the user's post with their real name (which was not attached to the reddit account). If Reddit removed the comment I haven't seen that yet, so the two stories feel vaguely similar in a way.

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/142094g/i_was_...

ok so now that the minor disagreement about dates has been resolved, how about the major disagreement over evidence her disease is not latent?

If her case was latent and she wasn't a danger of spreading the disease, my understanding is that her lungs wouldn't be so ravaged that they look like she has late stage lung cancer under an x-ray. And others have pointed out your 2-3 year number is weird and not terribly accurate as well.

If you read more about the case you'll see this isnt some principled stand about liberty or disagreement about the science of the disease but actually a mentally unwell person endangering themselves and others. You attempting to make a point about freedom on her back is, I might say, ghoulish.

I don't know what Reddit you're seeing but I assure you there are still plenty of thriving NSFW subreddits. I might even say tons. I've seen a few get deleted here and there but it was always for pretty specific, targeted reasons.

so was it no longer live, or did they encounter 20 minutes of technical issues that delayed the start? cuz either way it seems pretty obvious that at least for some amount of time it didn't work