Our great sponsors
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
Among the questions raised by this incident, which I'd only consciously been aware of since earlier today, is whether or not HN should accept and post content from The Edge.
That was suggested 11 hours ago by robot_head, which drew a response from dang which I find ... grotesquely insensitive, at the very least. The term "enabling" comes to mind. That's not the dang I generally encounter here.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32979901>
I've made three replies so far to that thread myself.
Dang's response is that "On HN, we generally go by article quality, not site quality: , and generally try to avoid guilt by association". That links a search on the terms "article quality" "site quality".
The problem I have here is that the situation departs sharply from "guilt by association" to "willing and knowing partner in crime", where those crimes include rape, child trafficking, and worse.
HN has seen at least 30 submissions from The Edge since 19 October 2020, based on its own "from site" feature:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/from%3Fsite%3Dedge.org>
The state I'm referring to is archive here: <https://archive.ph/8adBm>
I also noted to dang that The Edge nowhere carries any prominent mention, nor apology for, its associations with Epstein:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=site%3Aedge.org+epstein&ia=...>
In this case, if the question is "should HN subject the Edge to Damnatio memoriae?", the defence would have an extraordinarily challenging case to make.