Please don't degenerate into flamewar.

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

With the greatest respect, I disagree with this reading of the parent’s comment. It doesn’t seem particularly inflammatory to me? Or at least enough to warrant this call out…

It’s expressing a strong view yes, not necessarily one I disagree or agree with (I don’t know enough on the topic yet to take a view), but this doesn’t seem to blatantly break the guidelines.

If it wasn’t for the superb track record for what I view as quite impartial moderation on HN, I’d worry that the mention of “VC” here was a trigger for moderation…!

How is that a flamewar? Literally talking about the content of the article.

You started from the article and headed straight for a highly repetitive flamewar trope. That's just what we're trying to avoid.

Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of this site more to heart? You unfortunately have a history of violating it, and we're trying for at least a slightly better quality of discussion here.

I have to disagree like others are doing. There was nothing wrong with that comment. I've avoided this entire post so far because after reading the entire article, I was left with a distinct "huh, this looks like a pyramid scheme run by idiots and that may even include somebody I previously respected", which is pretty much what NFTs and most of digital cryptocurrency are.

The comment consists of "This", "Then", and "how indeed", followed by the biggest recent inflammatory tweet on the topic. That is not an interesting or substantive comment. Many users in this thread have posted far more substantive things. HN is for that, not this.

I think the thing that swings it for me is that I wasn’t previously aware of Jack Dorsey’s view on Web 3 and while I don’t share his extreme position on it, I did find this comment useful and informative as a result, especially given Jack’s very unique position and viewpoint in the industry.

Is linking to an inflammatory tweet the same as posting a directly inflammatory comment?

I still think the comment was acceptable. Not the most substantive, but not deserving of moderation.

I know it’s a very fine line to tread. But I come to HN to read all viewpoints - even those that might be on the outer edges.

I agree that the comment might have seemed more interesting if you hadn't seen that tweet before, but that's an illusion for several reasons. First, the tweet has been repeated often enough to have achieved informational heat death (I get that you hadn't seen it, but that's an anomaly); second, it plays on a tedious flamewar trope in its own right; third, the comment didn't add any information.

Over the weekend I spent a bunch of time looking into web3 and I've come to the conclusion that effectively, this entire thing is a bujnch of clown cars and we're not obliged to provide comments that provide information (IE, it's not even worth the effort explaining why everything about web3 is a pyramid scheme/sham run by cryptobros). I'll generally try to avoid even commenting on such threads, but just be aware: large swaths of HN think this is dangerously bad stuff. My guess is HN wants to promote these conversations because Y-combinator invested in cryptocurrencies and wants to hype demand.

You are obliged to post better comments, no matter how little you feel you owe 'clown cars' or whatever, because you owe this community better if you're participating in it.

The idea on HN is: if you have a substantive point, make it thoughtfully; if not, please don't comment until you do.

Btw, that has nothing to do with YC investments. It just has to do with trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck and doesn't burn itself to a crisp. That's our job here and it's hard enough already without piling something extraneous on top.

It isn't.

Re Dang: straight from your link, "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

Personally, I found the comment insightful. I don't have all the time in the world to sit and pick something apart. Make no mistake, the smart tl;dr of HN are what gives HN any kind of value. Without that, may as well just use RSS and Reddit. I'm already subscribed to Moxie, came to HN to see what intelligent people have to say about it given that I am no longer a Signal user, and am anti-cryptocurrency in its current iteration, but pro-decentralization, which makes Moxie quite an interesting choice for me to want to actively follow the thoughts of as we feel differently about many important topics.

There is no binary black or white to be established with abstract, complex topics like these.

If it was any kind of bait, it was bait to discuss further. That the whole USP of Web3 is supposedly ownership and anti-censorship, and what's happening appears to be opposite is definitely something we should be discussing.

What's the point of comments on HN if we can't use them to discuss? It's a commentary on somebody's opinion—with opinions.

Perhaps if you don't like opinion pieces then you should simply ban them via these rules? I think HN's content might end up a little thin on the ground in that scenario though.

Worth noting is what "guidelines" actually are, they're not rules. If you would like them to be enforced as rules, and expect people to treat them as such, start calling them rules or ToS. But in that case, expect far less interest in HN if you aren't going to permit open discussion.

Have a good weekend, Dang. Hope you and yours are healthy and happy.

If you read why indeed, it is because metamask calls the OpenSea API.

All one has to do is call a different API for the same information. It's not like it was actually gone