←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 1 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
mzs ◴[08 Feb 23 20:13 UTC] No.34714241[source]▶
In the future please at least look at an article before deciding to undo all the flags, many from actual readers.
replies(1): >>34714484 #
dang ◴[08 Feb 23 20:27 UTC] No.34714484[source]▶
Of course I nearly always do, but in this case the moderation call didn't depend on it, for reasons I've already explained in several other comments in this thread.
replies(1): >>34714653 #
1. mzs ◴[08 Feb 23 20:37 UTC] No.34714653{3}[source]▶
I read your decision as - it is worthy because Hersh says, that that is is the notable part and it invites curiosity to ponder. But are you aware that over the last 10 years he has published almost exclusively conspiracy theories that do not stand-up to scrutiny?