But the Weinstein stories have been not flagged. That's why I ask: is there an implicit bias? Should one only post stories that support a certain narrative?

Keep in mind that "flagging" is not handled by a small core set of moderators. The ability to 'flag' a story is granted to anyone with more than X karma (right now I can't find any reference giving the exact X value).

So whether a story is flagged is based on exactly which random users happen to see it when it gets posted. If you get one random set, they may be more likely to flag it, if you get a different random set, they may be more likely to not flag it.

So there's no way to answer the question "buy why did that other story not get flagged" because the reason why is:

it depends on exactly which random sub-group of users with 'flag rights' saw the story when it was first posted.

The 174 point Weinstein story you mention has as the top comment... someone complaining it got flagged, and a big [flagged] in the headline. So yes, it got flagged.

As you say, you're ignorant of how flagging works.

It's probably a good idea to stop flinging accusations of bias around until you understand the balance between upvotes and flags.

What I see is a story about Weinstein abusing Argento in the front page and a story about Argento abusing an underage boy flagged. And I get answers like "HN is not for news". Shouldn't it be both ways?

Not flinging anything, by the way. Just asking.