Dupe isn't about the url (except when it obviously is), it's about the duplicate discussion. Just flipping through most of this thread here it's all the repeated comments and points from the rather large thread on the source from earlier in the month. In this url's case it was written the same week as the source, maybe it brings a bit more analysis to the topic, but it's from then. It's not fresh. If it had been shared then it probably would have been merged into the main discussion (or could have been shared there at the time).

Not pointless at all, keeps things fresh and rolling. Stops some of us having to see the same topic over and over, and directs those who missed things to where the main discussion happened or is still happening. Stuff moves pretty fast around here.

You might see multiple submissions (a regular offender of submitting a ton of duplicates yourself) but they don't go anywhere, don't make it to front page or eyeball traction (say >20 upvotes). Most don't need specific dupe flagging because there's no discussion forming. Sharing the link helps casual readers find the discussion. And directs the recognition and attention to the original posters and story especially when stories are barely hours old.

As if you haven't been around here for awhile enough to be clearer on this. Striving to keep the feed fresh and discussion together helps us all, you could do better to contribute that way.

Dupe means duplicate, but that's normally if both links point to the same article or both articles are secondaries pointing to the same primary article

There is more to HN than just discussion. It's been called a "news aggregator" but it could be different things to different people

I prefer to read the submitted stories ("news") more than the replies, if any. I enjoy reading multiple stories on the same topic as they may include different presentation of the facts and sometimes different perspectives. Not to mention there are sometimes technical differences in news websites, e.g., some news websites suck more than others. Before the internet, I would read several newspapers each day. I would intentionally read multiple news reports of the same story

Others may prefer HN _discussion_, which only occurs on a minority of stories

NB. Most HN users do not submit replies and engage in discussion. They are readers and/or voters only

A small number of HN commenters, or maybe the moderators, might try to preempt or redirect potential discussion, or otherwise manipulate it to meet their preferences or goals

C'est la vie. Have at it

But I think "dupe" means duplicate. As in duplicate URLs. Others seem to agree. I appreciate the clarification

Using that term to refer to something else related to _potential discussion_ is subjective and inaccurate, maybe even deceptive, an attempt to "dupe" the reader, pun intended

Yeah, the source I used is browsergate.eu. I do a lot of developing in the dev tools (browser fingerprinting protection tool on the same site) and so I was looking at the dev tools for linked in and saw the extension enumeration a few weeks ago. I didn't realize that's what was going on, but there was a repository from a few years ago that started tracking this. There's a HN link somewhere... nefariouslinkedin I think it was called.

Then, I saw the browsergate story drop on mastodon and thought "no way," lo-and-behold, there's a lawsuit in the works for it.

I found the audit to be a bit dense and hard to read, this is a response to that. I

I did do my own independent audit, though. Sorry, I just checked back today and was not expecting this to get the traction it did.