←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 3 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.672s | source
Show context
dang ◴[08 Feb 23 18:31 UTC] No.34712496[source]▶
All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...), so I've turned off the flags on this submission.

If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." We don't want political or nationalistic flamewar here, and any substantive point can be made without it.

replies(21): >>34712914 #>>34712943 #>>34712970 #>>34713108 #>>34713117 #>>34713129 #>>34713157 #>>34713159 #>>34713244 #>>34713412 #>>34713419 #>>34713491 #>>34713823 #>>34713938 #>>34714182 #>>34714703 #>>34714882 #>>34715435 #>>34715469 #>>34716015 #>>34724637 #
torstenvl ◴[08 Feb 23 18:56 UTC] No.34712914[source]▶
Dan, I respectfully ask you to reconsider. This is a poorly-sourced speculative piece of propaganda and clearly goes against site guidelines.

You repeat, above, that HN is not for nationalist flamewar, and requires substance. But this post is nationalist flamewar and isn't substantive. Allowing it while shutting down similar content from the opposite perspective is... unsettling.

replies(7): >>34712927 #>>34713140 #>>34713585 #>>34713625 #>>34714682 #>>34716142 #>>34727712 #
dang ◴[08 Feb 23 19:33 UTC] No.34713585[source]▶
I'll read the article and reconsider. I haven't had time to even look at it yet. The moderation call here isn't based on agreeing, disagreeing, liking, or disliking. It just seems like an obvious interesting event, that's all.

Edit: Ok, I've read the first half and looked over the second half, and I think the moderation call was the correct one. Not saying this to pile on; I just wanted to report back.

replies(7): >>34713929 #>>34714160 #>>34714241 #>>34715321 #>>34716269 #>>34716962 #>>34728894 #
threeseed ◴[08 Feb 23 20:09 UTC] No.34714160[source]▶
So you haven’t read the article but are choosing to interfere with the ranking.

Why ?

replies(1): >>34714228 #
dang ◴[08 Feb 23 20:12 UTC] No.34714228[source]▶
I've answered that question repeatedly in this thread already. If you read those comments and have a question I haven't addressed, I'd like to know what it is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713787

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713529

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713479

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712496

replies(1): >>34714340 #
threeseed ◴[08 Feb 23 20:19 UTC] No.34714340[source]▶
The HN guidelines are clear about political topics.

Is there a change to the guidelines and should we expect you to not override the ranking system for opposing view points.

replies(2): >>34714397 #>>34714503 #
1. dang ◴[08 Feb 23 20:29 UTC] No.34714503[source]▶
The HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) entirely support the moderation call I've made here. If you think otherwise, you might want to take a closer look.*

It is neither desirable nor possible to exclude political topics from HN completely. At the same time, it's important that the site be protected from being overrun and dominated by political topics. Lots of explanation of how we handle this can be found at these links, if anyone wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....

* here's pg making the same point 10 years ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426

replies(1): >>34714689 #
2. hef19898 ◴[08 Feb 23 20:39 UTC] No.34714689[source]▶
Well, Sandy Hook did happen. And while NS 1 was blown up, besides a repitition of all arguments we had when it was blown up, Hersh's blog post does not provide anything new, does it?
replies(1): >>34720751 #
3. ◴[09 Feb 23 07:23 UTC] No.34720751[source]▶