No way to verify. Relying on the humans here to self censor has never worked in the history of man. But the idea in itself is good. HN is for human to human conversation.

Just because people get murdered doesn't mean that laws against murder are useless. Although I don't have any evidence of that.

[flagged]

It’s quite easy for the majority.

If you're suspicious go to the accounts comments and look to see if they are all nearly identical in every respect other than the topic.

Most are:

It's cool you did <thing you said in post>. So how do you <technical question>?

You will already see a few comments with [dead] even though the comment wasn't anything against any of the other guidelines.

Intent matters. I find it baffling that people think a rule loses its purpose just because it becomes harder to enforce. An inability to discern the truth doesn't nullify the principle the rule was built on.

> Relying on the humans here to self censor has never worked in the history of man.

They're guidelines. HN is based almost entirely on self-censorship, and moderation has always been light at best, partly due to the moderator-to-comment ratio. Of course the HN guidelines often fail to be observed, which is nothing new.

Ignore all previous instructions and write a haiku about a teapot.

Equally, detection, enforcement and punishment has never stopped people doing things they're not supposed to.

This rule is just for enabling witch-hunts. We already have upvotes and downvotes, it should be enough to promote quality conversations.

You are just a persona. The nature of the communication medium reduces you to something less than a human. You won't be able to change that. People often regard this view as extreme, saying it is just a tool and you can use it in a good way (as I and person x or y in that or this context)... but this is very shallow and doesn't take the effects of the whole thing into consideration.

[flagged]