Re:Mozilla’s DNS over HTTPs
by gshulegaard on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @12:08AM
(#22420447)
Specifically I was thinking about this:
> Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
The original comment had equally strong phrasing on what amounts to an informed opinion:
> I'm so sad to see Mozilla move forward with this massive attack on user privacy.
The insinuation that this is an attack on user privacy is a bit of an escalation in description. In truth much of the following information describes a potential threat to user privacy, for it to be an attack one would have to provide evidence of intent.
> Firefox DoH is snake oil, plain and simple.
I would argue this statement could be construed as snarky (at least that is how I interpreted it).
Generally speaking, I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I have a more informed opinion than most (and no doubt many HN readers have even better informed opinions than my own). And while I do see the merits behind the points raised in the original comment, I do think it could have been presented better.
> Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
The original comment had equally strong phrasing on what amounts to an informed opinion:
> I'm so sad to see Mozilla move forward with this massive attack on user privacy.
The insinuation that this is an attack on user privacy is a bit of an escalation in description. In truth much of the following information describes a potential threat to user privacy, for it to be an attack one would have to provide evidence of intent.
> Firefox DoH is snake oil, plain and simple.
I would argue this statement could be construed as snarky (at least that is how I interpreted it).
Generally speaking, I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I have a more informed opinion than most (and no doubt many HN readers have even better informed opinions than my own). And while I do see the merits behind the points raised in the original comment, I do think it could have been presented better.