If your complaint is that HN is skewed to non-communists, that's obviously true, but not interesting—what large population sample isn't? Actually there are indeed 'actual communists' on HN—not many, but we have our share. Who's ignoring their existence? I think they're interesting!
Surely a fellow Marxist would understand the overall ideological superstructure of western imperialist societies and furthermore the material base of a community focused on yeoman dreams at best and bourgeois domination at worst?
I wasn’t even complaining, just pointing out fascists are more welcome here than anti-imperialists. After all, the post by an anti imperialist that I replied to is now removed.
Alas, we're going in circles now. That's certainly not true and a classic example of overgeneralizing from skewed data.
Can you really not understand why we'd moderate a comment like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26368582 without appealing to ideology? It plainly violated the site guidelines, and the account had been breaking them aggressively (and surely on purpose) even after repeated requests to stop.
That's bog-standard moderation based simply on trying to keep the forum alive for interesting conversation, as opposed to flamewar and scorched earth. Interesting HN conversations can and do contain interesting comments with anti-imperialist ideas...but this case was obviously not that.
Moderation policy is itself an ideological choice. Seeking civility and avoiding meta-commentary doesn’t affect all political stances evenly.
The issue is that we don't want the site to burn itself to a crisp (the well known default outcome of internet forums). If you've got a better idea how we can achieve that, I'd love to hear it.
You didn’t list any examples of anyone even railing against left or far left positions, either real or perceived. No seizing of means of productions, forming worker’s councils, arming the working class, general strikes, abolishing private (not personal) property, black nationalism, revolution, etc. Not even just trade unions.
You can argue all you want that the two camps you described both perceive HN to be biased against them, but both you and them entirely ignore the existence of actual communists. The range of your comparisons stops well before going that far left. So how can you even analyse whether HN is biased towards the (global) right if your range of politics doesn’t even extend to the left past the US mainstream?