←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 2 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 #
hoffs ◴[08 Feb 23 23:09 UTC] No.34716962[source]▶
Try reading it instead of skimming
replies(1): >>34717473 #
dang ◴[08 Feb 23 23:47 UTC] No.34717473[source]▶
I read the first half and looked over the second half. Do you think I missed something that would change the moderation call here? If so, what?
replies(2): >>34717728 #>>34719112 #
1. threeseed ◴[09 Feb 23 02:42 UTC] No.34719112[source]▶
a) You didn't read the article.

b) You chose to override the will of this community who largely did read the article.

replies(1): >>34720356 #
2. dang ◴[09 Feb 23 06:16 UTC] No.34720356[source]▶
You didn't answer my question, so I will: there isn't anything in the second half of the article that would change the moderation call here.

You guys seem to be seizing on my saying I didn't read the whole article as if it were a horrifying gotcha. Let me try to disabuse you of that: it isn't necessary to read all of every article to make reasonable moderation calls, and that's lucky, because it would be physically impossible to do so. I can barely keep up with the titles.

I haven't overridden the will of the community because the community has no single will on this. It's divided along obvious political/tribal lines. It's not my job to align with any political or tribal view, including my own. The moderation principle on HN is simple and clear: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Literally anyone with strong political views can expect to occasionally encounter something on HN that outrages them; if not, then we're doing a lousy job, because one thing's clear: intellectual curiosity ranges across political and tribal fences.