Not sure why you think anyone is suggesting that non-occluding watermarks are a gripe people have with X.

GP is saying that BS gets a pass where X would not for a user hostile action.

From reading through a lot of comments on this thread, I'm honestly struggling to notice any super obvious pattern or bias other than the amount that people care about how screenshots work compared to the average person is a lot.

▲

irishcoffee 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, the dead comment really cements the bias of hn despite what people claim.

I don’t use either platform, I have no interest in the debate. As an outsider looking in, the bias has been proven.

Not that it matters much, I am left-of-center generally speaking.

▲

saghm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think this says a whole lot about the direction of people's political views here as much as there being a general disdain for arbitrary claims of political bias that aren't based on any discernible evidence. I feel pretty confident that if I jumped into a random thread about some feature in the Brave browser and accused someone of defending it only because they agreed with Brendan Eich on Prop 8, I would get flagged too.

▲

alex1138 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

re: dead, I agree. I'm so tired of flags killing discussion. This site is highly regimented

What I want, as someone who vaguely leaned left and has gotten... less so, since certain revelations, are platforms that work. Where you can't just get booted off for things that are not-boot-off-worthy (sorry. wording sucks). In that view, Bluesky is something I'm interested in as a protocol. It should be something the Left and Right can both use, regardless of the people it tends to attract

▲

zapzupnz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

From your profile:

> "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." = censorship. Unaccountable [flag] = censorship.

> Mass un-elaborated on downvoting = censorship; needing 500 karma to downvote = censorship.

> Turn on showdead in your profile and see for yourself what people are "allowed" to comment vs what they're not. Userbase = mendacious pricks.

Apparently everything is censorship and everybody else is a prick. It's always someone else's fault. There's never responsibility taken for mean-spiritedness or rule violations.

Ever considered that if this is the hill you're dying on, your takes are just terrible and getting flagged is just this site's natural selection?

No, it's everyone else who is wrong? OK then.

I mean, the dead comment in this one is dead because of: "You're just defending Bluesky because you're on the same team politically" which is an unnecessarily unkind, snarky, uncurious way to communicate. That last paragraph was unnecessary but it tainted the entire post.

From the site rules:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Don't be curmudgeonly.

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

But, of course, it's everybody else's problem, never yours, never the owner of the dead comment.

	▲	alex1138 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You're not wrong and I do think that specific dead comment is dead for a reason. I just get a bit bristly when I do see legitimate comments buried under flags