OpenGL 3.1 on Asahi Linux

Why does this posting have a rel=noreferrer tag, when others don’t?

Looks like jwz links also have a "noreferrer" tag added as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3132752

New silent HN policy to avoid showing its users that some people don't like them.

That page doesn't include noreferrer on the article link for me.

This is extremely gross 'Dang, and I'm wondering how you can possibly defend doing this. Seriously, why are you going to these lengths to evade a soft-block on links to specific sites that very clearly and explicitly are communicating that they don't want HN's traffic?

Something related to this? https://social.treehouse.systems/@marcan/110503050993279759

Can’t agree more. Disgusting.

"rel" is an attribute of several HTML tags, including the anchor tag <a> [0]. It is not something that would be visible in the URL.

The presence of this attribute instructs the client to not send the HTTP header "Referer" [1] when making a request to the target URL.

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Attributes... [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Re...

I know, I'm saying that it's not in the `rel=` on that article link on the linked page. Just noopener, which is of course included on every link.

It is. When I open the source, I see this:

<a href="http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-victo..." rel="noreferrer">Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"</a>

Might be that the method is different on a specific browser, but most likely you are looking in the wrong place.

<a href="http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-victo..." rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"</a>

> Just noopener, which is of course included on every link.

I can see no `rel` attribute on other submitted links.

Are you perhaps using some privacy-enhancing browser extension which adds the `rel=noopener` attribute to every link?

the moderation here literally doesn't care about the authors and developers who provide the links to the articles.

routinely they let them be harassed and derided on HN and do not care to focus on their attempts to stay off and away from that.

it's completely expected but still shameful.

Yeeeeeah, your stretching with your definition of harassment.

it*

adding a config to your webserver to evade a soft block is directly enabling continued harassment. Its not passive, not "I'm just getting out of the way here", not "I can't stop this, not my fault", you are literally editing your webservers config file for a site-specific change to allow your forum visitors to evade an explicit block, a block enacted because of harassment.

Yeah this is pretty inexcusable.

I mean that's because you consider it harassment. But if you consider it simple criticisms, suddenly its the person not accepting them, not harassment.

Celebrities deal with much worse, yet they don't consider "Taylor switft is ugly" harassment.