Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Kill-switches are dangerous, since they get built and never get used. I work on an anti-abuse system. It caused two user-visible outages in the last couple of years, one of which was an accidentally triggered kill-switch that had not been used in years and had some unexpected side-effects.

So I can see why they wouldn't have one of those pre-built for setting the entire site to a read-only mode. It's not at all obvious whether the risks are larger with or without that capability built in. But a spam filter with configs you can push quickly seems like table stakes, and should be a system that gets excercised weekly if not daily.



"This is a test of the emergency broadcast system..."


"Press okay if you want to enable cookies"


You don't need to kill the entire site. Just the ability to post new messages.


They are somewhat right. I have built these feature flag/kill switch kind of things and they rarely get tested. Over time it might not even work or have other side effects.

On the other hand, a product like Twitter having some content moderation filter seems very likely.


> they rarely get tested.

One of the largest problems of our industry.


> Kill-switches are dangerous, since they get built and never get used.

What about the circuit breakers at their data centers? Serious question..




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: