[gcp123]

As someone who's been reading Daring Fireball since 2004 and considers themselves an Apple fan, I think the algorithm is working exactly as intended if it's designed to limit intellectually dishonest content.

Gruber has built a career on a predictable pattern: vociferously defend Apple's every decision (even contradicting his own previous positions when Apple changes course), construct elaborate post-rationalizations for their missteps, while simultaneously maintaining meticulous, years-long grudges against anyone who makes incorrect predictions about Apple.

There's a stark difference between having perspective as an enthusiast and being a reflexive apologist. The "Something Rotten in Cupertino" piece is the exception that proves the rule - a rare deviation that doesn't erase the pattern of selective criticism that's defined his work for years.

What's particularly frustrating is the pretense of even-handedness. I'd respect the work more if it were openly presented as Apple advocacy rather than positioned as independent analysis. The community's collective flagging behavior isn't "censorship" - it's quality control from readers who've recognized this pattern.

HN's algorithm isn't suppressing contrarian viewpoints - it's responding to content that consistently fails to meet the intellectual honesty this community values.

[leokennis]

I want to start off by seeing I totally get your point. Still I disagree.

Where I think we agree is that John Gruber (JG) is 99% Apple's "ideal customer", while most HN readers are not: just like Apple he cares a lot about "nice things", "it just works", "the best experience" etc. even if it comes at the expense of price, consumer choice, open specifications, interoperability with other ecosystems etc. So we can intellectually disagree with JG when he defends some proprietary thing Apple built, but when JG writes that he loves that he himself is at least honest (and not an "apologist").

Where we probably disagree is where he (in your eyes) "vociferously defend Apple's every decision". I think JG is often not defending Apple, but just explaining why they are doing the wrong/bad/weird thing. Similarly to how a newspaper can explain why Putin thinks he's in the right invading Ukraine: they are explaining the reasoning, not defending it.

So we have a man that loves most of what Apple does because of an aligned view on what consumer tech should be, and "kremlinologizes" even when his views and Apple's might differ. Which gives the impression of a total apologist. Maybe (if he cares) JG could indicate a little better the times he's explaining Apple, not defending it.

[jgruber]

How then do you explain DF being HN's #3 personal blog from 2007-2021, but #72 from 2021-2025? Do you recall HN announcing a major algorithm change?

[JKCalhoun]

I would guess a change in HN audience (anyone want to throw in COVID-19?) and a decline in Apple's popularity in general.

[proline]

Revisiting "incorrect predictions" is a great way to learn about the error's in one's thinking and grow as a person. If your way of dealing with incorrect predictions is to pretend they never happened, then that learning can't happen. He doesn't have "meticulous, years-long grudges" against anyone who has made a bad prediction and learned from it. He does do it to people who refuse to admit they've ever made a mistake (eg the Bloomberg guy) or people who purposely make mistakes to pump and dump Apple's stock (Trip Chowdhry). To me that's fair game.

[boxed]

https://daringfireball.net/2025/03/something_is_rotten_in_th...

Your hypothesis is falsified.

[timeon]

Can you be more specific? Because this article was mentioned in the comment.

[joeblubaugh]

Hoo boy; the idea that “intellectual honesty” bubbles to the top is an … interesting take to say the least. I don’t think it’s well-supported.

Having an opinion and a tendency is not dishonest, and there’s plenty of garbage content that reaches and remains on the front page.

[gcp123]

I didn't say that intellectually honest content bubbles to the top, I said: "I think the algorithm is working exactly as intended if it's designed to limit intellectually dishonest content". There's a difference.

[xcrunner529]

Hey now, yet another article of the millions on the linux packaging managers is VERY important!!