zlacker

>>zkldi+(OP)
Just to be clear: you can do this with basically all social media, but I think it's an interesting discussion to be had that these services exist (and have specific detail, such as the comments[1] or FAQ[2]) one. This isn't a knock against any of the HN staff, but rather about how discussion can be paid for and shaped.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210126003211/https://upvotes.c... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210126003211/https://upvotes.c...

EDIT: looks like this hug-of-deathed the site, thats certainly one way to deal with this.

>>zkldi+d
You can, but there’s no denying that HN is an extremely attractive and soft target, given the audience, strong anonymity, and lack of security staff.

>>Sheinh+A9
Lack of security staff? Where did you get that from?

We've poured countless hours into anti-abuse work on this site over many years, and still do. If you have some justification for describing HN as a "soft target", I'd like to hear what it is, because from my perspective what you call "there's no denying" is flatly false. Even your own statement contradicts it: if HN were such a soft target, it would already be completely gamed, which would make it a shitty site, which would make it an unattractive target.

>>dang+yW3
I don’t mean to suggest any misstep on your part. I mean that you don’t have full-time security staff, yet in terms of influence and ROI for the bad guys, you’re in the same league as sites that have entire teams working on this.

I disagree that a significantly gamed HN would be overtly shitty. Influence campaigns work by posting engaging content that real users propagate. Setting the agenda is enough.

>>Sheinh+Hj8
Ok, peace! I probably overreacted as gus_massa kind of nailed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27583671