undefined

points

[-]

I'm not gate keeping anything, to do that I would have to make specific statements beyond "consider other people when you post something"

Right and my point is you (or i) will never be consulted, it happens emergently through community dynamics. No one sat in a group and decided this, Show HN in particular has always been selective. Different things are interesting to different sub groups and they select for different things. Show HN is not homogenous. My argument is not to not post, it's to post knowing who you hope to reach and why it would matter to them, don't just post to post, that is a large part of taste to me.

by XenophileJKO3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Shaming, ridiculing. People that dare to create something you don't like. Maybe the right answer is if you don't like what people are sharing that they made.. YOU make something and share it and lead by example instead of complaining.

by ianbutler3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

First I never did that.

Second, I've founded several companies, had customers, put out products to be judged by the market and raised capital. I'm more than qualified to put out an opinion here. Been there done that.

by isicjsjcu3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

[dead]

by internet20005 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> I'm not gate keeping anything,

Might be unintentional then, but the language in your post comes across as a textbook case of gatekeeping.

by sarchertech3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think society could benefit from a little more gate keeping these days. IMO, we’ve swung way too far to the other direction. We all need a little friction and constraint.

Gate keeping isn’t inherently good, but I think Trump is essentially the right wing outcome of zero gate keeping.

by ianbutler4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I honestly tried to not inject my own standards into this and tried to stick around dynamics as much as possible. I think you shouldn't post to post, but if you've considered your audience and thought about something outside of yourself as to why someone may like this, earnestly, and not just kidding yourself, you are acting in good faith imo.

Similarly, I should have done more in the post to steer people way from the perception I'm shitting on them for building for themselves, that's great I have plenty of personal projects running at home that are just for me, if I ever decided to share them out I'd work to make sure its ready and valuable for people to receive.

by tptacek4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The way you're expressing it, it sounds like you simply believe your own standards are representative of what everyone else's are. I disagree, for whatever that's worth.

by ianbutler3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My standards aren't expressed in the post at all is what I try to keep getting across. I'm describing an objective fact of social dynamics.

"Things that don't consider their audience get ignored or are perceived poorly."

The only thing I stated was a simple thing which is almost immovable fact at this point, that someone posting should be considering that.

My opinions are actually a lot stronger than anything I've written here and if it was about them the post would have been radically different.

by tptacek3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Always a helpful discussion strategy, just declare whatever you said to be an "objective" or "immovable" fact. I'm not sure there's much for either of us to gain by continuing. Anyways: now you know how I, and at least one other person I guess, read what you wrote.

by ianbutler3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> I'm not sure there's much for either of us to gain by continuing.

A feeling of self righteous indignation? (I joke)

Anyway, I appreciate your take, but yes I think we just take fully different sides. I really am having a hard time seeing it from your perspective, but I respect that we attempted to get through to each other. Cheers.