The subject is growth hacking and social networks.
Social networks grow big by targeting young female users as a vector for growth. Well documented countless times and talked about at length by the people who work there, this is one of the very key original "growth hacks" and not some sort of secret.
Rihanna posts baby pictures on twitter that get more views and engagement than all of the fediverse combined. This captures the key demographic.
You're welcome to publicly explain how the statement that you need buy in from content producers in the vain of Rihanna/Swift/Kardashians/BlackPink to capture the young female crowd, which brings in the young male crowd, which drives enough critical mass to bring in everybody else, an outright mathematical fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law), as some sort of flame bait.
I am familiar with your link. What guideline specifically am I violating here in this thread please Dang? Thanks in advance.
You violated the site guidelines against flamebait, name-calling, and snark, for starters. Also the one that asks you not to go on about downvotes. And no doubt others as well.
You already asked that question and I attempted to answer it in the comment you are replying to. If you want a more specific breakdown, this sentence:
"How many XX-chromosome neurotypical a-political undyed-hair normies are on your 7 federated instances? Please, count."
contains flamebait, name-calling, and snark. In a rather concentrated form! This sentence:
"People can be miffed at me for pointing this truth out but that is how social networks grow big"
is just grandiose flamewar rhetoric of the kind we don't want here. And this sentence:
"Edit: Hmm, I wonder who is downvoting this obvious mathematical fact of life, such a mystery!"
broke the site guideline against going on about downvotes.
You had a substantive point to make in that GP comment, but you made it in a way that broke the site guidelines badly. I shouldn't have to explain this to you—it seems quite obvious.
If you had made the same point in a thoughtful, respectful, conversational way, that would have been completely fine.
> And I attempted to answer it in the comment you are replying to
An attempt that was not sincere.
"And no doubt others as well" <- You are just transparently grasping at straws. You very much should have doubt, this is not an appropriate attitude for a mod on HN.
"contains flamebait, name-calling, and snark. In a rather concentrated form!"
What to be clear beyond a shadow of a doubt for the record is the name, specifically, that I am "name-calling"? The snark is in your mind friend. I was talking about the demographics, full stop.
Here is the guide line you are violating:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
"You had a substantive point to make in that GP comment" - Thank you for a minimal amount of honesty.
Repeatedly saying that mention of Metcalfe's law is "grandiose flamewar rhetoric" does not make it so. It just does not.
> If you had made the same point in a thoughtful, respectful, conversational way, that would have been completely fine.
I do not believe that to be the case at all. The objection is clearly to its contents and you are retrofitting "violations".
By all means can you demonstrate how my comment can be re-written without changing its meaning? You are not acting as an impartial moderator at all, I don't think you can. There is no "proper phrasing" possible. You took a very mundane post and exploded it into "grandiose flame bait" no less. I urge you to do some soul searching about your behavior.
Just so it is clear to you, there is a growing crowd here that grudge/group flags comments they personally disagree with. They go through peoples comment histories and punish them for wrong think, flag unrelated things, even one word comments like "thanks". Flag first to discourage what they personally find disagreeable and attempt to justify it later if at all. My mention of this particular, somewhat new behavior for HN, is not a "violation". As soon as I posted these users went and started flagging en messe (not just downvoting) random old unrelated comments - hence I edited my post. Their behaviour is acceptable to you? I am the one you call out?
Maybe they've moved what you consider "respectful" language a bit too far with these tactics. Your explanations given here are lacking. There was no flaming going on, none, it is benign neutral language. My most charitable explanation is that you are being played by this group.
And again, nobody will see this now but you dang - do as you wish with this feedback. Consider addressing that particular problem for one or at least acknowledging it.
Social networks grow big by targeting young female users as a vector for growth. Well documented countless times and talked about at length by the people who work there, this is one of the very key original "growth hacks" and not some sort of secret.
Rihanna posts baby pictures on twitter that get more views and engagement than all of the fediverse combined. This captures the key demographic.
You're welcome to publicly explain how the statement that you need buy in from content producers in the vain of Rihanna/Swift/Kardashians/BlackPink to capture the young female crowd, which brings in the young male crowd, which drives enough critical mass to bring in everybody else, an outright mathematical fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law), as some sort of flame bait.
I am familiar with your link. What guideline specifically am I violating here in this thread please Dang? Thanks in advance.