Yes we’ve all heard it before. It “strictly lowers the signal to noise ratio. We are trying to do something different here.”
No, this goal is not helping. This makes HN just like every other shithole online that censors its users. It makes the conversations inorganic and inauthentic. Ad hominems, while in poor taste, are protected by freedom of speech, and armchair expert white knights like yourself are only contributing to the lower SNR.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
If users don't like those rules, they can go to other platforms. I think part of the reason why people come to HN is specifically because of rules like this.
I don't think that you can argue that you're being politically oppressed on HN because of rules like this. You're free to articulate your opinions (political or otherwise), and in fact these rules are designed to help you do that - even if your opinion is an unpopular one.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
If you read closely, it’s phrased like a suggestion, not a rule.
It uses language like “please” instead of “you shall.” It doesn’t sound like something that absolutely needs to be followed, as it is phrased.
Guidelines have a way of morphing into rigid rules and censorship enforcement mechanisms when nobody is watching. However noble they may seem, they are a slippery slope, and I’d rather not buy into it.
