Wonder why this made the frontpage when other political articles die.
Has the rules around political non technical articles changed? Can we get an Epstein thread for the frontpage sometime this week?
replies(6):
Edit: here's one from a few months ago, which covers the principles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43738815.
Re how we approach political topics on HN in general: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Re how we deal with Major Ongoing Topics, i.e. topics where there are a ton of articles and submissions over time: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Re how we approach turning off flags: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Re the perception that "HN has been getting more political lately" (spoiler: it hasn't - though it does fluctuate): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869.
If you or anyone will check out some of those links and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
You might want to check out the part of the HN FAQ which explains that the moderators are editorially independent: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
In any case, I don't think Paul or Garry are interfering with the algorithm or moderation here.
Is the Isreal/Gaza debate not political, and not mainstream news? How does a story like this not directly violate those guidelines?
Furthermore, the guidelines state that stories should be what "good hackers" find "intellectually satisfying". A political debate thread about Isreal is what "good hackers" would find intellectually satisfying?
I just can not understand how a story such as this in any way remotely meets the established, official guidelines for what belongs here.
Considering these threads also, universally, just devolve in political flamewars / hate spreading. There's nothing constructive here. There's no debate. There's no opposing ideas/opinions allowed.
When the equation changes vis-a-vis Israel's credibility, this entire Jenga structure has to be reevaluated. It's not satisfying to think about, but it is intellectually prudent and remains important regardless of how civil the response ends up being.
Personally, one aspect I always enjoyed about this site was how it was often an escape for me from the endless bombardments of political discourse that is constantly being shown/recommend to me on other platforms. I do understand the importance of the nature of these types of discussions, but I agree with you, I am not certain much honest debate is being had here.
In the n number of threads like this, I would be surprised if many leave with any of their opinions changed. All too often do people comment to soothe their own knee-jerk reactions rather than to facilitate understanding or intellectually challenge one another.
If the topics and responses pertained to such a discussion, then that would be one thing. However, it seems like that is not what is being discussed in this topic nor comments section.
That leaves open the question of which stories to treat as on topic, but the links in my GP comment go into detail about how we handle that.
I'm not saying we always make the correct call about individual stories. There will never be general agreement about that, since every reader has a different set of things they care about. But I hope we can at least make the principles clear, as well as the fact that they haven't changed.
To phrase it a bit differently, does this kind of articles create a positive or negative engagement for HN?
I think that reference to "TV news" is outdated. Media has changed and there isn't even a clear division between what a media org puts on TV vs on the web.
And this sub-topic in particular (genocide ruling) isn't really getting a ton of mainstream news coverage -- many news orgs are deliberately distancing themselves from proper coverage. The story may exist on news sites, but it's not being surfaced.
There’s no doubt that this is then used as a weapon against people like Mamdani for having used phrases such as “globalize the intifada.” But that’s going to be an uphill battle to “correct”, because you’re dealing with people who are already biased, are often unaware of their bias, and are interpreting things in a way that fits that bias.
Legal judgements often make it to the front page of HN as they are as independent as we manage as humans. I don't feel having this post slanders Israel. It would be more interesting to understand what part of the UN investigation you disagree with.
They owe us nothing. Except perhaps sticking to their past commitments. You can always ask for a refund of your membership fee as last resort. HN is not a journalistic endeavour.
> I say this since I have never seen a pro-Israel post on this platform
Seems irrelevant as the OP is actually not anti-Isreal.
> but as an Israeli, I want to feel safe on my news platform
Having to see criticism of the actions of the government and military of the nation you live in when they step over ethical lines is not a threat to your safety. It's healthy.
I'll give you another one you might like. The root of the word Shahid in Arabic is "witness". This is another term that Western media likes to use incorrectly.