←back to thread

370 points sillypuddy | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.878s | source | bottom
1. andybak ◴[] No.16406990[source]
Rather worryingly this got flagged and killed. Hopefully we're still at the point where we can sensibly discuss a WSJ article.
replies(5): >>16407019 #>>16407659 #>>16407864 #>>16408533 #>>16408580 #
2. tadasv ◴[] No.16407019[source]
Agreed. This is so ridiculous. I saw the link on the front page. Now it's gone. At least it exists in search results.
3. ◴[] No.16407659[source]
4. oriolid ◴[] No.16407864[source]
Flagged and killed? I just got here through front page. I know you like being a victim, but you are not.
replies(1): >>16407878 #
5. dang ◴[] No.16407878[source]
This comment breaks the site guideline which asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." At the time the parent was posted, it was flagged off the front page.

Worse, of course, is the personal attack. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

replies(1): >>16409648 #
6. city41 ◴[] No.16408533[source]
I'm unable to sensibly discuss a WSJ article because I am not willing to pay to read it. Where does HN stand on pay to read articles? I didn't flag it btw.
7. sehugg ◴[] No.16408580[source]
The WSJ has gotten very Murdoch-y lately, and continues to contradict their own reporting to push Trump talking points on the editorial page [1]. Nowadays I tend to view them with the same suspicion I'd view a Fox News link.

Also, there's a paywall.

[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/the-wall-street-jour...

8. andybak ◴[] No.16409648{3}[source]
Thanks. I was slightly taken aback by that response. Especially because I'm probably not the straw man that the comment was directed at.