> Why not?
Personally I couldn't care less about the "Guardian admits…" narrative. The article is a genuinely informative analysis that would be done a disservice to be framed as support for an apology.
>Do you believe in it yourself, in absolutely every case, or do you follow it just because it is a rule? I'm not trolling, just curious.
I don't think you're trolling. I understand your viewpoint. I'm against selective enforcement. If there's a rule, and it isn't applied evenly to everyone all the time, it is a weapon of oppression. It is like the electronic form of white privilege.
Re:Flawed reporting about WhatsApp
by captainmuon on Thursday June 29, 2017 @10:03AM
(#14663366)
Weeell, I'm not sure I like your comparison with white privilige, but I get your point. I see that kind of selective enforcement happen IRL too often. Ideally of course you'd adapt the rules to be a bit less strict, and find a middle ground.
I like this title better, and the likelyhood that I'd have clicked on it would have been less with the original.
Just because somebody wrote that rule down doesn't mean you have to follow it, much less enforce it. Do you believe in it yourself, in absolutely every case, or do you follow it just because it is a rule? I'm not trolling, just curious. I find to many people on the net follow rules blindly. Rules are crystallized attitudes of communities. They shape the community, but the community also shapes the rules. If people would never break a rule, not even a little bit, they would either never change, or only change to be more strict over time.
Why am I loosing so many words over this? Why do I say you shouldn't bother that much, but then myself bother so much to write this? Because I don't want the moderation on HN to become like Wikipedia or Stack Overflow.