zlacker

I tried to read this article on digital privacy but after five minutes spent unticking boxes allowing my usage data to be sent to an augean list of data collectors I gave up and left.

>>Twey+(OP)
When this happens I disable JS for the website permanently and reload, sometimes it is not live loaded and the article is readable.

>>Twey+(OP)
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>>gruez+H3
An article being inaccessible or illegible counts as tangential?

>>nilamo+Z3
Not to mention it's directly related to the subject of the article.

>>wat100+N4
That might be true but it's been done to death because it's applicable basically every time commercial coverage of a privacy-related topic. It has the vibe of "we should improve society somewhat. yet you participate in it. curious!". Not to mention in publications with proper editorial independence, the "business side" (ie. the side that's responsible for adding the ads/trackers) is firewalled from the side writing the articles, so there isn't even really a contradiction.

>>fmsf+v3
Bless the hearts of webmasters who allow reader mode to function normally.

>>kstrau+58
No webmaster allows reader mode to function normally. There are, however, webmasters who don't try to prevent reader mode from functioning normally.

>>gruez+H3
The hypocrisy in the context of the content of the article is, in its self, interesting. It's not tangential by any means.

>>Twey+(OP)
Those are just placebo buttons.

>>dotanc+Sa
Potato, potato.

Here, "allow" means "doesn't actively work to counter".

>>nilamo+Z3
Yes

>>gruez+V5
It's more like, "you complain that people throw sand in your eyes, yet you also throw sand in people's eyes, curious." This is not "yet you participate in society." Unlike participating in society, these behaviors are entirely optional and they can stop any time they want, they just prefer not to. Editorial independency doesn't absolve them. It just means that they're doing the right thing in one area but not another.

>>nilamo+Z3
Yes, it's tangential in the sense that we're using the word there: it veers in a different direction from the article.

If an article is truly inaccessible or illegible, then it shouldn't be on HN. But if it's readable-albeit-with-annoyances, then it belongs here if (and only if) the content is sufficiently interesting, irrespective of annoyances. In that case we want the comments to focus on the interesting content.

Not that annoyances aren't annoying—they are, and they annoy us too. But the cost of having comments about them is much higher than the benefit, especially because they're so repetitive. Annoyance comments also tend to get stuck at the top of the thread, accumulating upvotes and choking out more interesting discussion.