The reference to that list of covert organizations was to imply the fact that there is a lot of snooping going around into people's activities in real life and that I like the fact that I can hang out with some people online without the need to worry about what other people think my intentions are. Or more directly: I don't like to have to worry about my participation on News.YC being accepted/rejected on criteria other than being voted up or down.
You disagree with me on something? Fine, down vote me or respond, but don't start trying to make predictions on what I might do next. There is nothing friendly about trying to anticipate what my next move might be so that you can identify something "alarming" about what I'm doing. I think the aptly termed "fluff" is harmless, and I've been arguing all along that it contributes to diversity, which is key for idea generation/exchange. Homogenize the community, and it begins to lose value.
I MIGHT submit a series of articles that others think are "fluff", but does this mean that now I go on some sort of "fluff watch list" and need to be monitored, or perhaps "dealt with" because my articles/views/ideas are not in line with the majority members?
Apologies to everybody if I am still coming across as implying some sort of conspiratorial tone (in which case you may down mod me or explain to me where I err in my argument), but I still stand by my conviction that monitoring others to "weed out" certain "alarming trends" is far worse than the pain suffered by "fluff".
I will add that fluff != spam. What others judge to be "fluff" is just that - a judgement call. I'm simply speaking out against judgmental attitudes en masse (or if you prefer the shortened terminology - mobs).
The reference to that list of covert organizations was to imply the fact that there is a lot of snooping going around into people's activities in real life and that I like the fact that I can hang out with some people online without the need to worry about what other people think my intentions are. Or more directly: I don't like to have to worry about my participation on News.YC being accepted/rejected on criteria other than being voted up or down.
You disagree with me on something? Fine, down vote me or respond, but don't start trying to make predictions on what I might do next. There is nothing friendly about trying to anticipate what my next move might be so that you can identify something "alarming" about what I'm doing. I think the aptly termed "fluff" is harmless, and I've been arguing all along that it contributes to diversity, which is key for idea generation/exchange. Homogenize the community, and it begins to lose value.
I MIGHT submit a series of articles that others think are "fluff", but does this mean that now I go on some sort of "fluff watch list" and need to be monitored, or perhaps "dealt with" because my articles/views/ideas are not in line with the majority members?
Apologies to everybody if I am still coming across as implying some sort of conspiratorial tone (in which case you may down mod me or explain to me where I err in my argument), but I still stand by my conviction that monitoring others to "weed out" certain "alarming trends" is far worse than the pain suffered by "fluff".
I will add that fluff != spam. What others judge to be "fluff" is just that - a judgement call. I'm simply speaking out against judgmental attitudes en masse (or if you prefer the shortened terminology - mobs).
I appreciate the response!!