Tavern on the Meta

Also, we can't close answers. (yet)

@Shog9 Considering you modified the "specific site" reason here, can you please look into meta.stackexchange.com/questions/311803/…?

@ShadowWizard True, not all, but many are. Moreover, most downvoted questions do not have attentive askers.

@TravisJ usually when explaining a downvote, you tell the person they did something wrong, hard to avoid that. And for many people, being told they did something wrong is offensive, rude, and makes them feel bad, so they'll flag.

8:04 PM

Not for me, in general.

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog you're not the common user. Almost none of the people here is... :)

@ShadowWizard it's interesting when they can't figure out the core functionality of the site but they'll manage to flag a comment.

@canon when someone wants something, they'll find it.

@ShadowWizard Meh, that is the result of poor guidance, and in many ways also the result of a culture of brashness. A vast majority of the time you don't have to explain what they did wrong, so much as explain why we expect something to be there which isn't included.

@ShadowWizard funny we were just having a conversation in the c++lounge about if you can sue the companies that inject unwanted ads into your site (it is technically copyright infringement)

8:06 PM

@Mgetz you mean like ISP's injecting crap into http responses?

@Mgetz If they hack you then perhaps there is a violation, but it isn't copyright. Especially not if you are being paid by the ad companies.

@TravisJ well, the explanation is also useful for other people reading the question/answer, not only the author.

@canon yep, it's technically willful infringement

so dirty :/

@TravisJ no this is when you're not being paid when the ISP does it illegally

8:07 PM

@ShadowWizard Which is why it is so important to explain the background of what went wrong with the post instead of just saying "nope, don't do that, nuh uh, people here don't like that sort of thing".

A single downvote will make it unlikely that someone else will fully read the post and decide it's worthy of an upvote. People tend to follow on what others do, rather than lead for themselves.

@Mgetz Oh, well that isn't copyright violation, that is unauthorized access, which counts as being hacked and is a criminal act.

Arguably, it is worse than copyright violation.

@TravisJ more like "foo is wrong to use in this context, you should use bar instead" in a comment explaining answer downvote.

@TravisJ no it's not, because they are allowed to make copies and it is in plain text. They didn't hack you

It's creating an unauthorized modification

@ShadowWizard Wait, okay, let me make an important distinction. I am solely talking about question downvotes. Answer downvotes are a different ballpack, and I agree with you in that context for explanations and pointing out what was wrong technically.

8:09 PM

@canon just use https, they can't inject anything into it. No?

encrypt all the things :)

yup

all dem tingz

@Mgetz Nah, they gained unauthorized access to your source code. View source shows the modified version from the ISP versus the stream you wrote to the response.

It is a hack. Any decent court would uphold it.

it's a pretty clear mitm attack

@TravisJ You'd have a hard time proving that, statutory copyright infringement is much easier

@canon you'd have to convince a jury of that... and you won't

8:12 PM

just equate it to mail tampering

federal offense

It is literally the easiest thing to prove.

Here is the response we give: A. Here is the response the ISP modified: B.

that's relatable even to non-technical people

@canon yeah but get a prosecutor to take that case... I'll wait

mmmm class action

@canon mmm forced arbitration

with no opt out