Hacker News Reader

Comment by happyslobro | Hacker News Reader

I will phrase it differently in the future, but I stand by the sentiment.

That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities, but just a watered-down version of that sentiment is problematic too: it doesn't teach us about anything other than how you feel, which is not part of our shared reality that is the basis of conversation. That's why we ask that comments not only be civil, but substantive, so that they're contributing to the discussion.

"That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities"

I look at it as a direct non-verbatim usage of Zuckerberg's own words against himself. After all, Zuckerberg already has this sentiment for everyone using Facebook - "Fucking morons" IIRC.

Now, what do you consider a contribution to the conversation? I've seen plenty of comments that do not do that and yet they still remain either highly-voted or at least not in the grey.

Zuckerberg wasn't commenting on HN. Like everyone else, you can figure out what's constructive on a particular forum - a moderator is just pointing out something that isn't.

I think that particular comment is inappropriate for HN because it is uncivil and unnecessarily offensive/rude to a specific person.

To object to the comment because it "doesn't teach us anything other than how you feel" is to say that any statement which conveys only "how you feel" is inappropriate for HN.

Is that really the way it works here?

What if he had said "I wish Zuck all the best!" -- would the moderators have come out against that too?

No, certainly not. Just that such things can often safely be omitted, but should definitely be omitted when they would disrupt the conversation by being insulting, inflammatory, off-topic, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com