←back to thread

1332 points Qem | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.037s | source | bottom
Show context
ipaddr ◴[] No.45267137[source]
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): >>45267159 #>>45267311 #>>45267868 #>>45268417 #>>45268490 #>>45268612 #
dang ◴[] No.45267159[source]
No, the rules haven't changed—they've been the same for many years. Let me try to dig up some past explanations.

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.

replies(7): >>45267194 #>>45268112 #>>45268457 #>>45269022 #>>45270156 #>>45271813 #>>45277169 #
thegrim33 ◴[] No.45268457[source]
Looking at the official HN guidelines, it states that "Most stories about politics" is off-topic, and "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic".

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.

replies(7): >>45269049 #>>45269378 #>>45269385 #>>45269414 #>>45269905 #>>45271092 #>>45271776 #
1. dang ◴[] No.45269414[source]
Yes, but as pg once put it, "note those words most and probably" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426). That was in 2012, btw, which shows how far back HN's approach to this goes.

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.

replies(2): >>45271244 #>>45272083 #
2. neom ◴[] No.45271244[source]
fwiw I think y'all do a fine enough job of dealing with this difficult nuanced stance. I've noticed that when they stick around, it appears to be a combo of: this seems important enough, the community can probably have a civil conversation around this, people who don't participate will find learnings through the comments still. These 3 things always seem well satisfied, personally I appreciate the measured nature of this community and thank you and tom for the genuine work of trying to maintain the balances.
3. zurfer ◴[] No.45273402[source]
It's a basic need for people to feel safe. I wish that for everybody and most of all for the children of this world.

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.

replies(1): >>45281431 #
4. baobun ◴[] No.45273404[source]
> You owe Hacker News users two things, one a statement of what political content will be allowed and what won’t and two a declaration of your political boundaries.

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.

replies(1): >>45281416 #
5. ukblewis ◴[] No.45281416{3}[source]
Serious question: Has anyone accused (I’d say slandered but it’s besides the point) your nation of genocide on a platform you trust? Does your nation have mandatory conscription? Does your nation face mainstream media, politicians, artists, actors and other call to annihilate it? This post on Hacker News genuinely made me feel less safe here: not because of words or criticism (which I am the first to support and accept and encourage even) but because of lies being used to encourage the murder of Jews. The murder of Charlie Kirk isn’t a coincidence: we’ve reached a fever pitch where now many people that others should be murdered for their views and words and not for their actions
6. ukblewis ◴[] No.45281431{3}[source]
What is legal about this post? You are aware that the UN is not a legal body and by definition investigators are not judges. You’re actively reversing innocent until proven guilty here