Hey mods is there a particular reason this post is being penalized? As of writing it's #22 with 400 points in 1 hour, while #5 has 119 points in 3 hours.
replies(3):
All three elements—moderators, users, software—comprise HN's moderation system. The system works this way because if it didn't, the front page would be dominated by politics and flamewars, which can't coexist with HN's organizing value of intellectual curiosity: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That doesn't mean that all political topics are excluded here, as anyone who pays attention to HN is aware. The main things we're looking for are whether there's overlap with intellectual curiosity, and whether the topic is one that hasn't been discussed recently. Those two criteria tend to support curious conversation.
In this case, the topic has been heavily discussed in recent months—indeed it's one of the most-discussed topics on HN at present and there has been a huge number of flamewars about it—so we would tend toward downweighting the thread. On the other hand, the discussion on this one has managed to stay relatively thoughtful—far from perfect, but we didn't get a wretched flamewar, which is unusual with so provocative a post, especially on a nationalistic topic, which is probably the most inflammatory of all domains these days. So I've reduced the downweight.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Based on how we work as moderators, I'd say it happens to a lesser extent the further the post is about tech—but that's not really what we're looking for either way. What we're looking for is topics that are intellectually interesting and can support intellectually curious discussion. Topics that have already been debated to death are much more likely to get penalized whether they're about tech or not. Initial discussions about the Damore thing spent much time on HN's front page, just like the Snowden thing in 2013, and the Stallman thing a few years later.
Why do we tend to penalize topics that have already been debated to death, unless a story contains significant new information? Because curiosity withers under repetition and people's responses become predictable. In other words, moderating this way is a simple consequence of intellectual curiosity being HN's organizing principle. That's the one thing we optimize for in everything we do here.
Even with all that, I'd say we barely get by in terms of having an intellectually curious site—but there are so many strong forces acting against it, that barely getting by is probably the best one can do. From the beginning, the idea of HN has been to stave off decline for as long as possible. I've always liked that goal, as it seems modest enough to have a chance.