I also took care to use representative language from the article itself, describing what it is about. That's also standard moderation practice: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

Whenever we do any moderation on any divisive topic there's a strong tendency to leap to the conclusion that it signifies some political agenda, secret opposition to one side, secret support for the other, and so on. I understand that that's how the internet works. But it's deeply untrue. We're simply doing what we always do, as even-handedly as we're able.

Unfortunately, to the extent that one is even-handed (and I'm not saying we do that perfectly, just to an extent), passionate partisans on every side of every divisive topic end up feeling like the mods are secretly against them. Why? Because by definition even-handedness means they all have some data points to object to, and that's all they need to jump to such conclusions (actually, even just one data point, or maybe two, is enough to produce this conclusion). There doesn't seem to be any way around that, much as I wish there were.

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