Re:The antitrust case against Google
by dang on Saturday June 13, 2020 @02:52PM
(#23511703)
Thanks for the balanced reply! Fair enough re "accusation". If I had read your comment more closely I would have said "insinuation", which is the word that the guidelines use anyway.
> Is it within the rules to state that a commenter is an employee of "${CO}"? I note the commenter who did that did not get flagged.
That's a tough one to answer unequivocally. Bringing in someone's personal details as ammunition in an argument is generally not allowed: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., so if I had to pick yes or no I'd say no. But one can imagine lots of borderline cases.
> Is it within the rules to state that a commenter is an employee of "${CO}"? I note the commenter who did that did not get flagged.
That's a tough one to answer unequivocally. Bringing in someone's personal details as ammunition in an argument is generally not allowed: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., so if I had to pick yes or no I'd say no. But one can imagine lots of borderline cases.