Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomhow | Hacker News Reader

> The ability to disown a specific set of content

We are willing to do this.

> Requesting anything more results in them saying “oh yes, we respect users wishes, blah, blah” and no action

We gladly work with users to redact any material that identifies a person or reveals their location, or that otherwise poses risk to their welfare.

View on HN

As a third party observer, it feels like "work with" could still be hiding a lot of thorny differences in judgement over what constitutes material that should be removed. That's why I was outlining a broad-brush mechanical policy that would cover most of the cases (unlinking a user's contributions across different threads from each other).

The problem is that each case is different, and there's no one approach that would cover all of the cases. Indeed I can see that it doesn't actually address the concern in this case, now that I've been able to find out what the account is and investigate the issue.

More broadly, this is why it's extremely unfair to make public accusations the way this user has done in this thread. The way we handle these cases actually takes far more time and involves more effort and care than it would take to implement the approach being advocated here.

So then you should implement the approach being advocated here.

You said yourself it would take less effort, and the outcome is better.

Win, win.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com