←back to thread

1332 points Qem | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
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 #
1. 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.