Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Zuckerberg apologizes for VR cartoon tour of Puerto Rico devastation (techcrunch.com)
85 points by Caveman_Coder 9 days ago | hide | past | web | 102 comments | favorite

The headline seems a bit misleading... he didn't actually apologize for the cartoon, but for the fact that some were "offended" and misunderstood his stated goals for the presentation (showing off VR and the partnership with Red Cross).

In other words, a classic non-apology. The issue is that people did understand the true goal of the presentation: self-promotion.

This has become an standard PR stunt. I agree with you that journalists should point that out.

Also, why public figures could not apologize for real? Like "I am sorry, this was not a great communication campaign after all. We'll do better next time." Is this really difficult?

Probably because he's not really sorry. It's not like he did anything horrible here. This is a Public Relations problem, not a moral problem, so you get a Public Relations apology.

Why is the quality of apology such a concern these days? Obviously they're apologizing for PR reasons, as should be expected. You're just creating an environment where people learn to be better liars.

Why is integrity such a concern these days? Obviously they're pretending to have integrity for PR reasons, as should be expected. You're just creating an environment where people learn to fake integrity.

Personally I find apologies of any kind from companies worthless. I don't get why people are so bent on squeezing apologies out of everything they can. It's a power thing most likely.

I prefer actions and we should incentivize the right actions from companies. Apologies are worthless, what people actually believe is worthless. Behavior is the only thing that matters.

>Why is integrity such a concern these days?

It's phony integrity. Social media has turned the entire world into gabbing Sunday churchgoers where everyone has to pretend to think and act in acceptable ways otherwise they'll incur the wrath of church gossip.

It's definitely possible that people complaining about phony apologies are doing a power thing... Hmm, maybe they want to take away power from people who do bad things?

It would be nice if there was some kind of way to signal true remorse, like a way of speaking with our bodies, a "body language".

No one says the behavior doesn't matter - but without an expectation of social cost (apologies, and further criticism and reputation loss when the apology is tone deaf and insincere), why would anyone care about behaving well? Demanding apologies isn't worthless - it's a power thing.

The problem is that moral indignation is rarely about improving the state of things. Further, attempting to change the behavior of corporations through moral indignation is the least effective option. Getting CEOs to issue apologies or to be driven out of their companies is about power--the feeling that the mob gets when its crusade is victorious. But this is only loosely related to improving the state of the world.

People follow incentives, and this goes even moreso for amoral corporations. The most effective way to change the behavior of corporations is to create the right incentives such that its in their best interests to behave in ways that are in all of our best interests. Insisting on "true belief", which this obsession over genuine apologies seem to indicate is the goal, just isn't needed. The behavior will follow when the incentives are aligned. But this shows its less about behaviors and more about the feeling of righteousness people get from moral indignation.

Potential liability, and/or massive egos.

I got my "law degree" from watching TV, so take this with a grain of salt, but when you apologize you are admitting fault, which could be legally binding if a lawsuit is brought upon you.

So if he were to apologize, Red Cross could then potentially sue over a down tick in donations due to the join campaign, etc.

Again, not a lawyer, have no real interest in law, but this has played out on TV shows a few times.

This could be partially true. CA, MA, and a few other states have laws protecting against this kind of liability, but it's still probably a best practice against major liability.


You’re not wrong, and even when it isn’t about admitting fault/responsibility outright, you don’t want your apology read out in court, or worse, the video of you apologizing played.

I am also not a lawyer, but for my sins all of my first-order relatives are.

I think the backlash has been too sensitive.

Of course there is a rubbernecking feeling to it, but it's not all that different from the NYT sending Nachtwey ot someone of equal caliber to a devastation zone to bring viewers closer to the action.

I'm sure we'd be outraged if it happened with regard to the ongoing North Bay fires, but you know what, five years hence, this will be an ordinary way to bring the news to your environment.

People are "shocked" because they are not used to the medium. One day they will be and this reporting will be ordinary.

It's not the technology so much as the tone of the video that was off-putting, I think. The Times also did some 360 video of PR devastation and nobody was shocked.

It's not the tone - it's the fact that one uses a natural disaster for self-promotion while the other does it to inform the populace about the extent of damage.

How can using any new medium in such a context NOT be seen as self-promotion? It can't. But the benefits of the new medium also shouldn't be sidelined over the fear that folks like you might get outraged over a non-issue.

I feel like it'd help to avoid saying features of your product "are really cool" as you use it to present disaster footage. Also the upbeat cartoon avatars were probably not a good choice.

Do you agree that TechCrunch's headline (and, by extension, HN's) is misrepresenting what the apology was actually for?

Regardless of if the criticism is justified, my point here is that there was no apology made for the planning/execution of the presentation itself -- just for the offense it caused to those who misunderstood the goals of the presenter.

It's one thing to believe an apology wasn't necessary. It's another thing to believe it's OK for "journalists" to massage this corporate non-apology into something more palatable.

Zuckerberg really seems to have something wrong with him when he does stuff like this, yet gaslights Congress over Russia's use of Facebook during the last election. I never really like cared for Zuck or Facebook, but don't they have any adults over there saying no to any of this stuff?

Traditional media is chasing social media every day. This was the dream, it just took Trump to bring it into reality. A company that lives and dies by ad analytics couldn't have not known about election influencing purchases.

The adults in the room want more Facebook in your life at any cost, totally rational goal for the organization to live on.

I would bet a day or two of bad press from Mark's VR stunt is probably worth the bump in engagement and publicity.

I cringed a bit when I saw this. It is one thing to go to Puerto Rico and walk around a block of houses to raise awereness.

But to do this in VR, not even taking the effort to actually go there... it's a bit. I don't know. I guess tone-deaf is a good word for it.

Just feels like those pictures where people pose for a selfie next to the homeless people they just handed €1 to.

It's also sickening that this feels like some kind of product promotion piggybacking on the devastation in PR.

I have a rift and rarely use it because of nausea. I can definitely see how viewing a scene like this in 360-degree video from a rift could create a level of empathy just not possible by any other means. Of course, Mark could easily jump on a plane and actually go to Puerto Rico, but most of the planet can't. He's creating a platform that one day could have something like news clip videos in VR of scenes like this. That's a potential game-changer to get more people involved in assistance. Most of us don't search out bad news, we filter through it, so we can move on with our lives. It's a lot harder to ignore something you've seen after viewing in VR 360 degree video. I think its not moving in the wrong direction to attempt to have actual serious use cases besides games and entertainment.

It's the Wii-like avatars against the devastation backdrop that really makes it so cringey.

Don't worry, the next release will have Snapchat filters instead.

The people of Puerto Rico are suffering in Actual Reality using VR to visit them is unbelievably dense. Doing it as a cartoon is even worse.

No, its a way for the rest of us to visit the devastation in a way that triggers our empathy. This isn't about Zuck, this is about the rest of the country that has basically been ignoring PR.

The rest of the country hasn't been ignoring Puerto Rico. It's been in the news everyday for weeks. FEMA and other agencies sent 20,000 people to help. Tens of billions of dollars for aid have been approved by Congress or requested by Trump.

Perhaps you've been misled by partisan claims that Trump is failing to respond.

>I don't know. I guess tone-deaf is a good word for it.

These kinds of responses are completely bone-headed. You know why Puerto Rico hasn't received the kind of awareness (and hence resources) that Texas and Florida received? It's because people are so disconnected to the devastation. Anything that makes the devastation more real to the rest of the country is doing genuine good for Puerto Rico. Facebook uses their technology to do just that and people can't wait admonish Zuckerberg when they get the chance.

> Puerto Rico hasn't received the kind of awareness (and hence resources) that Texas and Florida received

That's completely false. Puerto Rico received 10x as much coverage as Texas and Florida.

I mean they were in Puerto Rico, but yeah there is an emotional distancing with VR that they really really should have been aware of. They probably were aware of it and zuck overrided.

>zuck overrided.

I really do wonder if Zuck is a functional sociopath, and not in a 'jokey' way but in a clinical fashion. Many of his top level decisions seem to show a complete lack of empathy and his reputation like calling Facebook users "dumb fucks" for trusting him, really seem to fit the bill. Perhaps we can excuse a lot of this for his relatively young age he found success at, or even just write him off as on the spectrum and tone-deaf as opposed to sociopathic, but its something to consider and worry about considering his vast influence.

Sadly, in the world of US executives, a certain level of sociopathy seems to be the norm. Or at least, learned pseudo-sociopathy (The Gervais Principle) [2]. There's many critical writings about what under-regulated capitalism leads to[1] and the type of people who end up the most successful in such environments, but I'm not sure if HN is the place to have this conversation considering its ultimately a forum for entrepreneurs. But there are pressing questions and ones I imagine that will be more important as income inequality and automation begin to eat the world.





Should have brought a 3d Scanner.. this could have been the next call of looty level.

Fellow humans, I apologize for my lack of tact. Rest assured my borg has assimilated the proper human constructs and all sources of error have been purged. Have a mellow day.

I'm gona still that. Espacially the mellow day.

> the tone-deafness of the video was pretty pronounced and even though the content of his video pointed to all of the positive work Facebook was doing in Puerto Rico,

People are pretty good at detecting superficial niceness. It's something even babies are good at, it's hard-wired so to speak and it's basically the answer to the important question "does this person really care, or are they just pretending". Sure, some become really good manipulators and can fool others.

Somebody else could have done pretty much the same VR tour and it would have had a different effect. The technology itself here wasn't the main problem.

> Facebook is generally pretty careful to isolate its CEO from opportunities for bad press, Zuckerberg has an extensive team helping him maintain his manicured public image on the social media site.

The manicuring part is the fake niceness. "Someone is making him look like what he is not, what are they really hiding..." kind of idea. That is it is contrasted with his or his company's action, what he did and said in the past (ex. "They trust me — dumb fucks") and then it becomes unsettling and has a negative effect.

About manicuring a public image and fake niceness, for some reason, I find the following funny take on his public image quite authentic :)


I love it! Thanks

Still not as cringey as the fact that he wanted Chinese president to name his son which president refused to do!

I mean that was depraved in a different way.

Would have found a awesome name if i where the chinese president.

Cringekotau M. Zuckerberg

Hehe, or something like "Miantang" which would mean "noodle soup" :)

You'd think politicians and pseudo-politicians[1] would have all learned their lesson from Bush's poorly-received Katrina flyover[2].

[1] https://www.gq.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-pollster

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-11-05/bush-call...

I'm wondering what kind of feedback they got from their dry-run... I kind of wish interviews for engineering positions took soft-skills more seriously. What ends up happening is you have a room full of technically brilliant people, who might be on a spectrum, making user-facing decisions.

What happens when the top guy is on the spectrum and over-rides these decisions? Part of the problem isn't just being on the spectrum but having someone in a position of power on the spectrum. You can have the best men and women at Facebook, but if Zuck is personally greenlighting these moves then it does no good.

As someone who worked in an environment like this, its very frustrating to see good judgment tossed out the window because the boss's ego or social blindness overrides all.

Worse, executive culture in the US is elitist culture. After a while, when you push 7 figures for years, fly your own plane, spend weekends on the yacht, have four homes, etc you just simply fall out of the mainstream and one's judgment on what is appropriate PR simply is off-kilter. Its funny how well we understand this with, say, royalty of old, but somehow our capitalistic 'royalty' get a free pass. Its the same human brain at work here be it today or 18th century versailles. People who are elevated to a certain point will simply become out of touch. Adding being on the spectrum to this only makes it worse.

> What happens when the top guy is on the spectrum and over-rides these decisions?

Could go either way; seemed to work well for Jobs and Apple for example. Lots of CEO's seem to be on the sociopath spectrum.

> you just simply fall out of the mainstream and one's judgment on what is appropriate PR simply is off-kilter.

And then they become president. Dun dun dunnnn.

Good point, but the 'net good' Jobs argument always feels a little hollow to me as he didn't live long enough to fight he later-life battles, namely destroying Android which he called a stolen work.

One of Cook's first significant acts was cutting back on the patent warfare between Apple and Google/Samsung. Jobs dying young saved us from this war, a war that would have damaged the smartphone and wearable market significantly.

The problems with Jobs is that he fought for his customers, which was nice if you're a customer, but if you're not, you're now a victim of Jobs. Why should Android buyers be assaulted by him? What did they do wrong other than buy into a more open-ish ecosystem? The patent system and courts are wholly corrupt and/or incompetent, so its not like there's a moral avenue for jobs to attack Android. Just everyday business sociopathy.

Worse, a lot of Jobsian logic has been tossed out the window recently. The whole "the human thumb is so long so smartphones must be 3.5" maximum" and a variety of other cargo-cult wisdom. The iphone and mac lines of today most likely would not have been possible with Jobs at the helm. iOS is more Android-like than ever and recent decisions with MacOS seem un-Jobsian to me.

I think Jobs died at the perfect time. Enough to bring in the mobile revolution but not long enough to run it into the ground over a scorched earth war with competitors. That doesn't exactly make him a great example of sociopathy for 'good' as much as it makes him a good example of dying relatively young.

The above also ignores unexcusable sins like fighting "poaching" from his competitors with a gentlemen's deal (enforced by the threat of patent lawsuits - again) which only kept engineer salaries lower than they should be.

The point of the spectrum is that everyone has some place on it, including you. To make a general statement about people that are on a slightly different part of the spectrum is a form of discrimination.

> "...on a spectrum"

Does "on a spectrum" mean "autistic" the way you used it?

I think instead he may have affluenza

I'm sure it also means any other deviation from the norm. Framed as something intrinsically bad, or at least indicative of deafness to tone.

Things like this make me want to have a VR cartoon tour of the meeting or round table that produced this train wreck. Wonder what their expectations were.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics strikes again.[0]

I'm taking the contrarian stance that "visiting" a disaster zone in VR is more engaged than just reading about it in the news, which is more engaged than not taking any interest at all, which is the default.

"When you’re in VR yourself, the surroundings feel quite real. But that sense of empathy doesn’t extend well to people watching you as a virtual character on a 2D screen" -Zuckerberg, as per the article

I think this effect did most of the damage. The cartoons involved are just the avatars, presumably each participant was not even seeing their own avatar.

[0] https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

Instead of talking the tech and how to apply the tools of technology, the media and their consumers are as usual scoring style points and mounting a lynching expedition.

VR is a useful tool, for various parties including for planners to really "see" the devastation in 3D.

> the media and their consumers are as usual scoring style points

Zuckerberg's stunt was tacky as hell. He clearly demonstrated how laughably out-of-touch he is with the reality other people live in. You may care more about the tech, but it was like watching a spray-paint salesman hawk wares by spraying over masterpieces, except worse because we're talking about humans.

Also, calling criticizing an out of touch goofball for being tacky a 'lynching expedition' is ludicrous. It isn't even a VR lynching.

> VR is a useful tool, for various parties including for planners to really "see" the devastation in 3D.

Stop and think about this for a minute. If you can get sufficiently detailed data for logistics planning (say, by driving Google Cars around), you're past the planning stage.

I think Zuckerberg and everyone involved with VR at Facebook have been overly effected by Chris Milk's TED Talk about how VR can be the "Ultimate Empathy Machine".

The arguments in that talk are compelling, and they probably felt they were doing a great humanitarian service. I don't think they are bad people at all, but they are definitely in a bubble where a certain awareness of the humanitarian potential for VR has made them blind to the perception of the average person.


That makes me wonder... If rather than viewing it as a YouTube video I had instead watched their "tour" in VR, would I STILL have been immediately struck by it being tone-deaf?

I think I still would be, because the whole point is to have actual conversations with people who are affected by the humanitarian crisis.

The fact that probably millions of people would vote for him to be president is terrifying to me.

Trump may have doomed us to an endless flood of celebrity politicians. I despise Zuckerberg but other celebrity candidates scare me more. If we must have a tech mogul I would prefer Gates or Cook.

> "Trump may have doomed us to an endless flood of celebrity politicians..."

We've had numerous celebrity politicians before Trump. Franken, Reagan, Arnold, Ventura, Springer, etc... The list continues[1] and it definitely wasn't Trump that was the first (although he holds the highest position of any of the other celebrity-actor-politicians, without having first held another political position).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actor-politicians#USA

EDIT: Clarified my comment on Trump being the "first" celebrity-president

fwiw, Springer's political life was before he became a nationally known celebrity


Reagan was president too though.

Fair point. I edited my comment to make clear that I meant first celebrity-president without having had any other political position.

Other celebrity presidents would merely be dumb. Society has managed to survive bumbling politicians, mocking them all along the way.

Zuckerberg strikes me as hell-bent on global domination, but doing it with the most plastic smile possible. Given any sort of real authority, I doubt even humor at his expense would go unchecked.

Gates would actually be pretty good IMO.

Gates as a candidate would work as well as McAfee

Lets cut in some video of the rawandan refugee crisis, hey look at all the cute kids running around LOL here we go! this is fun! here is some PR for PR

It's events like this one that make me doubledown on the idea that having a more diverse employee base helps buisnesses out, especially when it comes to "optics".

Maybe just maybe if someone at FB in the decision chain had lived in an impoverished area struck by disaster, or had relatives who were in this situation, they could have made a convincing argument that this was insensitive.

It seems as if every week there are 2-3 companies that have a PR disaster that really seems as if it could've been averted if they had a different perspective "red team" the idea, I guess this week it's Facebook and Dove[0].

0 - https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/dove-apologiz...

> in the decision chain

That's the key, and in the vast majority of companies, the decision chain is going to consist of less than 10 people, all wealthy, mostly white, and mostly whose privileged, elite world views are divorced from "normal human" life.

Perhaps more pr firms need to have some historians in their ranks. This far too much seems like the 19th century slumming by the affluent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slum_tourism

America: please do not elect zuck president.

Many here would pass this off as 'growth hacking' and that's a bigger problem.

Of course Mark Zuckerberg doesn't need growth hacking. For a social network that prides itself for being on top of things this makes him and the facebook team look completely clueless and disconnected.

Maybe some fresh blood ideally not from the software ecosystem who can make the connection back to reality.

If this was so cringe-worthy, why wasn't that mentioned in the original coverage? https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/09/vr-zuckerberg-shares-detai...

From your lined article:

"seeing a cartoon avatar in the middle of an NPR-produced 360 video highlighting the situation in Puerto Rico while very real people walk around surveying the devastation of their homes perhaps wasn’t the most appropriate choice."

It reads like a script right out of Silicon Valley.

Really? Talk about out of touch.

Despite an army of PR people coaching him for over a decade, he still can't stop the inner sociopath from coming out once in a while.

I know how beloved that old standby is to some of you, but it breaks the HN guideline against name-calling. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, so please don't.

No, this isn't because we love Zuckerberg, serve corporate overloads or whatnot—it's because repeating the same things over and over is off topic for this site, especially when they are toxic waste.

All: this is also the sort of comment we use to downweight user votes, since it's a honeytrap for reflexive internet indignation, and that is the thing we're most hoping to avoid here. If you'd like your votes to count on HN, cultivate the habit of pausing before you use them.

If we had a more expressive way to classify posts than "up" or "down", I'd use it to indicate that "I want this post to be highly visible because it encourages anti-Facebook sentiment, which I consider to be a socially and politically valuable thing to do", and mark other posts with, for example, "this post contains good original research" or "this post makes accurate technical statements".

Why is HN voting so opaque, only explaining how votes work in scattered tidbits at the bottom of comment threads? A well-designed system doesn't work only because nobody knows how it works. The current method of "herd these sheeple through a maze they can't directly perceive" feels very patronizing.

At any rate, I'm not sure whether it's worth it to upvote the grandparent now, since it is apparently a censored viewpoint and merely shooting myself in the foot to do so.

The integrity of HN as a container for substantive conversation rather than tedious tropes matters far more (to HN, I don't say in general) than encouraging rage against some target, even one as big as Facebook which there are reasons to be concerned about.

If you want to support such concerns, there are plenty of solid comments about them to upvote. One reason such comments get posted is that HN still exists as a place for them—which it would have ceased to do, long ago, if we didn't moderate shallow snark and ragey drive-bys. Those things are not "viewpoints". They're litter. Any genuine viewpoint is possible to express seriously, and should be.

What does downweighting mean? Is it that users who upvote that comment have their votes mean less, or?

Yes. Edit: Well, it means the users who repeatedly upvote crap comments eventually have their votes ignored.



By 'crap' I mean something not as subjective as that sounds, which you can gather by reading those links and https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Aha, thank you. You learn something new about this site every day. Sometimes I wonder just how many robots (and humans) there are, ensuring that these discussions don't fill with crap.

/me tips hat

Is there any way to identify whether or not our upvotes or downvotes are being ignored? Any way to get feedback on whether hackernews thinks our personal opinions are worthwhile?

You can always email hn@ycombinator.com and ask. But I don't like this phrasing: "our personal opinions are worthwhile". Try "violate the site guidelines". That's still subjective, but it's not as if we're trying to pick market winners. About that we really don't care, except maybe when it comes to APL.

What standby? This article is about Zuckerberg apologizing (again) for being completely tone-deaf in a manner that suggests he really has no idea how humans work beyond stimulus-response machines.

What do you suggest? That we comment on the VR tech?

This entire thread is just reaction on his behavior. You may as well just close the thread.

He is suggesting that you not make 1-sentence comments that basically just call someone a sociopath. There's no real analysis there. Everyone who bothers to read your top comment basically just got their time wasted. So what the mods are protecting against is HN becoming full of these time-wasting comments, i.e. they don't want to turn HN into 9gag.

The "sociopath" standby, with extra anti-points for "dumb fucks" icing.

The thread of course has plenty of things to talk about other than that petrified nugget, which was getting old ten years ago.

"dumb fucks" was an event in time.

Sociopath is a quality that manifests repeatedly through different events over time, including this latest one. This entire thread is people saying the same thing in different words.

Harvey Weinsten appearing in nothing but his boxer shorts for an actress audition was a moment in time. The qualities that made him creepy and predatory remained constant.

You're doubling down on what I asked you not to do, which is casually sling accusations of mental illness with an internet swear word. If you do it again we will ban you.

Even if you were right in this case (which you have no evidence for, just a connect-the-dots cartoon, and few dots at that), this would still be so. "Sociopath" comes even before "shill" on the feces-throwing internet trigger list. Every time we tolerate such a violation of the site guidelines encourages others to do the same. That slope is both slippery and steep. Since my #1 job is to (try to) prevent HN from plummeting to its death down it, it's not like this is a hard call.

Without his comment we wouldn’t have had this whole conversation.

HN is sliding backwards due to this kind of censorship, not for lack of it.

This is not a good conversation to be having; it's a necessary one, made necessary by people breaking this site's rules and endangering it.

You're talking to someone who has been doing this same thing for so many years that I basically do it in my sleep, with about as much interest. If that's a backward slide, then (as Voltaire said when someone told him coffee was a slow poison) it must be very slow.

> This is not a good conversation to be having.

In your (sleepy and uninterested) opinion. I love it. We're all learning so much! There are more comments on this sub-thread than the rest of the thread.

> I basically do it in my sleep, with about as much interest...

That's exactly what it feels like.


> sleepy and uninterested

That of course was a joke, meant to acknowledge how tedious and off-topic these digressions are. A factual version of the remark would be something like 'I've done this tens of thousands of times for many years now, so any negative effect of the sort you're claiming would long have been priced into the system'.

It’s not name-calling if it’s true.

And you are sitting here calling someones truthful comment toxic waste. Meanwhile the top comment here wonders if any parents are present at Facebook.

Honestly, HN really sucks at moderation. You aren’t consistent at all and the rules are completely ambiguous. I’ve actually seen you respond this exact situation before when people complained about name-calling by saying that it’s not name-calling when the person is not even here and because they are the subject of the article.

So whatever to you sir. Bad censorship is bad.

> It’s not name-calling if it’s true.

On the contrary, of course it is, and having it be "true" (which none of you have any evidence for, as I pointed out downthread) would make it worse, since then it would inspire even more feces-throwing, the overwhelming majority of which is not "true".

> HN really sucks at moderation

Maybe this is not the site you're looking for. In my world, consistency of moderation is quite impossible; for one thing it would require reading all the material.

> On the contrary, of course it is...

Calling something what it is...is just called communicating.

And there is plenty of evidence. Consider first, if you will, the fact that sociopathy is a spectrum disorder.

> Maybe this is not the site you're looking for.

Oh, well I guess I could say the exact same thing to you. That's a bit snarky don't you think? I mean, here I am and obviously I want to be here but you're telling me that maybe I don't want to be...hmmm. Nice moderation.

> consistency of moderation is quite impossible; for one thing it would require reading all the material.

Responding the same way to each incident does not require reading all the material. Having non-ambiguous rules does not require reading all the material. Having more moderators does not require reading all the material.

The reason I said that is that you recently broke the site guidelines and rejected the correction.


If you continue to post in a way that makes it clear you don't want to use this site as intended, you're going to end up getting banned. Please reread https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this from now on. It's not like it's hard for anyone who wants to.

It might be the other way around. Something about having more money than God and influence over the social lives of the planet probably doesn't help you keep in touch with your actual humanity.


Unless he does indeed style himself as "Zuck", can we please spell his name properly?

Real Names Only!

Let's focus on the positive things: at least he did not call the people "dumb fucks" again.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact