
Ask HN: Should Medium be more upfront when it censors content? - megous
Yesterday I&#x27;ve been reading this page:<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@kesterratcliff&#x2F;international-assadists-references-directory-8038067fe394<p>Today it&#x27;s gone. If I didn&#x27;t search the author on Twitter, I wouldn&#x27;t know it was removed by Medium.<p>&quot;This page is unavailable.&quot;<p>doesn&#x27;t really cut it. &quot;We removed this content because it violated XYZ&quot; would be less confusing.<p>I think websites that publish other people&#x27;s content should be more upfront about these kinds of removals. Otherwise it&#x27;s confusing to the users. I mean if it&#x27;s not spam, but something users might have read and liked, why not state the reason for removal?
======
crooked-v
Holy leading question, Batman!

My default inclination is to entirely skip over arguments that use this tactic
even if I'd otherwise agree with them, because it suggests that the person
writing it can't phrase their thoughts in a non-clickbaity way.

~~~
megous
I'm still trying to improve my clickbait skills. I guess I still have ways to
go.

But I don't think you can extrapolate from a single instance what other person
can or can't do. ;)

Anyway. I'd call it "Suggest HN", but there's no such thing, yet.

