As with all of HN's rules, you need to understand that rule from the spirit and not just the letter of the law. The intention is to avoid general prosecution of everything/anything about a company, because hiring posts are not a good context for that. Otherwise what happens in a large, open forum like HN is that simply the appearance of a name begins to attract every grievance or accusation or concern that's floating out there.
Some of those grievances, accusations, and concerns are surely valid. But sometimes they're the one-sided productions of disgruntled internet commenters—I can tell you from long experience that there's a lot of that out there too. And it's often not easy to tell the difference.
What tools does an internet forum have to adjudicate such things? Mostly just thorough discussion and debate by the community. That may or may not bring out the whole story and a fair conclusion; even in the optimal context there's no guarantee that such a discussion will arrive at the truth or rise above the level of a mob piling on. But what's clear is that a "Who Is Hiring" thread is just a terrible context for that sort of cage match. Hence the rule that we just don't go there.
The problem here is there's no way to know the "spirit" without knowledge of its history.
Why not just say what you mean, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then why doesn't the rule say that?
Better yet, go all the way and forbid replies entirely. That achieves the same stifling of conversation, in this one context where it's deemed "terrible", without the enforcement that can seem capricious and arbitrary (as you say yourself, "it's often not easy to tell the difference") and can needlessly shame an otherwise well-intentioned commenter.
dang|6 years ago
Some of those grievances, accusations, and concerns are surely valid. But sometimes they're the one-sided productions of disgruntled internet commenters—I can tell you from long experience that there's a lot of that out there too. And it's often not easy to tell the difference.
What tools does an internet forum have to adjudicate such things? Mostly just thorough discussion and debate by the community. That may or may not bring out the whole story and a fair conclusion; even in the optimal context there's no guarantee that such a discussion will arrive at the truth or rise above the level of a mob piling on. But what's clear is that a "Who Is Hiring" thread is just a terrible context for that sort of cage match. Hence the rule that we just don't go there.
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]
mmt|6 years ago
I have, of course, personally read all these justifications for the rule before, but they do nothing to address my question.
mmt|6 years ago
Why not just say what you mean, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then why doesn't the rule say that?
Better yet, go all the way and forbid replies entirely. That achieves the same stifling of conversation, in this one context where it's deemed "terrible", without the enforcement that can seem capricious and arbitrary (as you say yourself, "it's often not easy to tell the difference") and can needlessly shame an otherwise well-intentioned commenter.
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]