> consider why so many people were upset.

Were there lots of people upset? Or was it a small number of people with power who were upset? Like, I'm not at all surprised by how this played out, but it's not clear that anyone was upset beyond some people who don't take well to criticism.

▲

kstrauser 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Say hypothetically 1000 people were having great fun using it to cyberbully 10 people. It’s impossible to say that it’s no big deal because 99% of users loved it, unless you know exactly how much the 1% hated it.

▲

1whizkid1 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This was exactly my point You can always find 10 people who will hate on things, that doesnt mean you should get to ruin things for 1000’s of others

▲

samus 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the thing directly impacts them then yes, it should get to ruin things for the rest. If you don't understand why that is desirable then somebody should make a website describing which NSFW websites you like to frequent to spook your future investors.

	▲	ImPostingOnHN 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		it's like a trolly problem where the main line is "status quo" but you can optionally pull a lever labelled "students who like anonymous internet rumoring get more of it and also some students are victimized"

▲

ImPostingOnHN 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can always find people who will like something, that doesn't mean you should do it.

For example, there are people who watch some sick shit on the internet, that doesn't mean you should serve it up.