zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. meeste+(OP)[view] [source] 2016-01-11 04:52:34
You're talking about goals and motive; I don't know why. I took issue with the behavior, the specific act of editing the title, in a way that contrasts the actual articles title.
replies(1): >>derefr+2a
2. derefr+2a[view] [source] 2016-01-11 08:05:47
>>meeste+(OP)
Because the GP comment was talking about HN "jumping the shark", and you were agreeing with them and adding that this was an "abuse of power"—both things suggesting that this action betokened bad things for HN going forward.

My point was that it doesn't, any more than a waiter asking after your mother's health when she's just died implies the restaurant is on a decline. That's not insensitive (therefore implying the restaurant is now hiring insensitive people); it's just a faux pas (therefore implying the restaurant is hiring regular ol' fallible humans.) The change to the article title here, likewise, was not an abuse; it was just an overly-hasty application of the regular HN guidelines—the thing dang does literally all day without anyone noticing when he's doing it well, done with slightly less care than usual.

dang is a regular person; regular people realize when they do things other people don't like, and then stop doing those things. Systems composed of regular people (i.e. not tyrants and sycophants) self-correct, rather than entering downward spirals. Not everything presages the end of an era. Most things, where conscientious people are involved, are just hiccups.

[go to top]