zlacker

>>swomba+(OP)
Hi swombat, Regarding gawker, as I remember, there was a discussion here whether to ban it, and most people were for the ban. The reason was the low quality of journalism and defamation tendencies in some of its articles. So gawker is indeed banned.

>>greyma+o
why not ban techcrunch on the same grounds then ?

>>nrayna+K
Techcrunch is indeed pretty nasty sometimes, and I have criticised them here before, but it would be utterly ridiculous if hacker news, a news site for startups, banned one of the preeminent startup blogs.

Techcrunch is influential and as such it is relevant for many people here. You can ban a site that is nasty and irrelevant, but you cannot ban a very relevant site just because some articles are odious.

Banning should not be about morals, but rather about usefulness.

>>fauige+f1
Noisy != useful

Moralistic != useful

But your mileage may vary.