zlacker

Why is this reply being downvoted? It is merely informative.

>>noober+(OP)
It shows the actual words, which are hard to spin. If we keep what was done vague, we can spin it any way we please.

>>noober+(OP)
> Why is this reply being downvoted? It is merely informative.

Because this is HN. Expect some guidelines-lawyer to cite some section that was technically breached by that informative reply.

>>noober+(OP)
> It is merely informative.

That's the problem.

When facts/information doesn't align with one's agenda, some people have a terrible habit of trying to have it hidden/banned/removed/etc.

You would think in hackernews of all places, we'd upvote the comment to see exactly what trump wrote so that we can decide for ourselves when it was "glorifying violence". Sadly, many here don't want that to happen.

>>noober+(OP)
I think because it just restates what's in the link being discussed, when the link is not inaccessible nor behind a paywall. There are a lot of people who think that's bad form on HN. That's my guess. People trying to force everyone to "read the articles" on HN.

>>bilbo0+K5
I appreciate someone posting what was actually said because I have limited data.

>>ttonky+ia
I appreciate it because I don't want to open the sluggish website that is twitter.

>>double+Wa
I appreciate it because when I follow twitter links in my hacker news app I get rate limit blocked...

>>noober+(OP)
HN is quickly turning into a leftist SJW and socialist haven, similar to Reddit

>>all2+E
That's interesting. I interpreted it the exact opposite way. That looking at the words - they don't seem so bad, so the liberal-minded HN users downvoted to keep the details away.

Funny how personal bias can twist perceptions.

>>koheri+5b1
I think you and I are thinking the same thing: if the source is available, then the reader can form their own opinion.