zlacker

>>simjue+(OP)
Why does this posting have a rel=noreferrer tag, when others don’t?

>>ezfe+TA3
Looks like jwz links also have a "noreferrer" tag added as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3132752

New silent HN policy to avoid showing its users that some people don't like them.

>>mrpopo+TE3
This is extremely gross 'Dang, and I'm wondering how you can possibly defend doing this. Seriously, why are you going to these lengths to evade a soft-block on links to specific sites that very clearly and explicitly are communicating that they don't want HN's traffic?

>>dtorna+J64
the moderation here literally doesn't care about the authors and developers who provide the links to the articles.

routinely they let them be harassed and derided on HN and do not care to focus on their attempts to stay off and away from that.

it's completely expected but still shameful.

>>slikri+0a7
Yeeeeeah, your stretching with your definition of harassment.

>>jacoop+Uq8
adding a config to your webserver to evade a soft block is directly enabling continued harassment. Its not passive, not "I'm just getting out of the way here", not "I can't stop this, not my fault", you are literally editing your webservers config file for a site-specific change to allow your forum visitors to evade an explicit block, a block enacted because of harassment.

>>dtorna+vZ9
I mean that's because you consider it harassment. But if you consider it simple criticisms, suddenly its the person not accepting them, not harassment.

Celebrities deal with much worse, yet they don't consider "Taylor switft is ugly" harassment.