note that i don't agree with your definition.

> Biological warfare [...] is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, insects, and fungi with the intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war.

Knowingly allowing the spread of a highly contagious, lethal virus fits the definition. The only point of contention is whether the party's actions were due to incompetence or malice.

That said, it’s one possibility among others, though the animal reservoir theory is the most viable and accepted at this time.

for example, this article is a great read: http://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/the-man-who-saw-the-p...

people making baseless claims about the virus, which is happening everywhere and in particular is coming from the u.s., will only seek to harm things for everyone in the long run. it will cause governments to clam up (already happening) and has politicized the virus. now, experts' opinions and life work, like that found in the above article, will continue to be ignored in the chaos that is ensuing.

if the experts on zoonotic viruses are to be believed (why wouldn't you?), then it is clear that there are systematic problems that are leading to the increasing crossover of these zoonotic viruses. by politicizing the virus and hyper focusing on its political enemy, the u.s. is making this thing much, much, much worse (in addition to increasing the current spread within its own borders) and will lessen the impact on preventing future outbreaks. we as a species already struggle to address the issues that cause these outbreaks (overpopulation, encroachment on habitats, socioeconomic issues, etc.), and these actions of rumors and associated behavior, found on this site even, will bury the actual problems, turning everything into a childish and chaotic argument.

Disclaimer: I don’t believe this, just playing devil’s advocate

Disclaimer: Also don't believe this, just playing along.

everybody keeps saying this, but just stop. it doesn't help and it confuses. all you do is bolster people who skip over your "disclaimer", even if you actually do believe your disclaimer.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

i think it's simply because a lot of americans are on hacker news, and there is a gross level of anti-chinese sentiment in the united states in general, probably more-so from educated people.

They're currently kicking black people out in the streets out of their homes and giving them no where to go because of a ban on foreigners, even though those foreigners never left the country during the pandemic and are no more risk at spreading the disease than anyone else. It's racism, pure and simple.

https://www.france24.com/en/20200411-if-you-re-black-you-can...

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3079497/us-w...

I mean, many of the things we're seeing in China currently are the kind of things that were happening in Germany in the 30's that were warning signs.

Just calling out things that are well documented in the news is enough to get down voted mysteriously, maybe the wǔmáo's have become aware of this community.

Also in the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): please don't post insinuations about astroturfing to HN. The data is clear that this is almost always in the eye of the beholder, i.e. people imagine it as an explanation for things they dislike, and they're far more likely to notice those than other things. For a great deal of past explanation, see these links:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I didn't realize such selectively enforced standards were a thing? Should I report any post that criticizes government actions for nationalism?

So is criticizing a any government's actions in an comment section about an article criticizing the same government is nationalism? I didn't realize being in support of common human rights was a controversial ideology. I apologize for my actions and welcome the new mod community standards.

I hope this statement will please current and potential YCombinator investors.

Users who post thoughtful, substantive comments on either side of this issue don't run into problems with moderation. The point is that this is a site for curious conversation, not ideological or political battle. We can't have both, for the same reason you can't have a tank battle in a flower garden.

I have zero idea what will please Y Combinator's investors. From my point of view, the only thing that matters is keeping Hacker News interesting, because that's what keeps the community thriving, and that's what's most in YC's interests. I realize that people have reason to be skeptical about such claims, but being able to run HN that way is why I'm willing to do this job. Most other places on the internet, this wouldn't be possible, because the site would need to make money directly (e.g. by selling ads) or to push growth at all costs, either of which would kill HN as we know it.

HN is in a sweet spot that way, compared to how other sites of its kind need to operate. The reason is mostly a historical accident of how HN and YC grew up together, plus the fact that YC's business benefits more from HN being the way it is than it would from a different sort of community. The aren't many businesses in whose interest it would be to fund a site like this.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Someone conflated that with race, which is holding an ethno-nationalist view of China, where as I differentiate between the government and the people. I've actually been to China, as such I have a personal investment in the place, and met a few of the minority groups and are aware its not one homogeneous culture, so to think all Chinese are the same or even the same race to me is ignorance. I called that out.

When I linked to several articles pointing out the hypocrisy of the CCP position, which was being echoed by who I was replying to, that all criticism is due to racism which is a propaganda position (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/29/chinas-latest-tactic-call-am...) and no sensible person would use that as a defense. So its not a thoughtful, or substantive comment to say all criticism is anti-Chinese or bigoted. But you're doing this one sided enforcement of rules?

I follow the stuff in China close to the ground, I'm hyper aware of the tactics used to counter criticism. I got turned on to the people to get on the ground reporting right here on Hacker News. To see moderators allowing shallow "any criticism of China is racism" but harp on me for pointing out obvious human rights violations, well it does call in to question the bias here.

So I ask you, why call out my statement, and not the person making blanket statements that people are anti-Chinese (as in race) when calling levying criticism. I fail to see that as thoughtful or substantive.