On HN, we're trying to open up a space to discuss new things, unexpected things, curious things. Those exert a weaker force on attention than the sensationalized hot topics that already exist in people's minds. When comments hop from a new topic to an intense pre-existing topic, that creates a path to flamewar hell. It's moderation's job to restrain and undo that, so that the more curious, weaker topic can get attention again. Does that answer your question?
Have you considered you’re not in the right, when both Congress and the Whitehouse have investigated social media censorship?
In the unlikely event that Congress or the Whitehouse take an interest in HN moderation, I'll be happy to share with them how we approach this.
“I’m doing the same things that triggered Congressional and Presidential investigations, and plan to continue until they harass me directly.”
You’re such an upstanding member of society.
I sincerely hope they do investigate you, because I believe your authoritarian censorship has infected other technology websites, and is the place many people at Google et al learned to censor for “civility”.
The exact thing that is under investigation.
And to anyone who feels silenced by dang, I suggest you reach out to your congressional representatives — and report the instances of censorship for narrative control you observe. This is an issue, and dang’s pretenses aside, it is being investigated as a serious social problem.
It’s time to standup to leftwing bullies silencing people who don’t agree as “offensive”, because those same leftwing bullies devolve into angry shouting when confronted by opposing views.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
To give this article a fairer chance at having its actual content discussed, I'm going to collapse this subthread.