If you squint hard enough, sure, you can apply the adjective you want to just about anything you want. That doesn’t mean that the adjective has no meaning.
I ran a cycling forum and thought it could be without politics, but cyclists died in road traffic incident in London that turned out to be predominantly female cyclists due to heavy goods vehicles, and over time I had to relent... it is policies that shape the city planning, the construction industry regulations (trucks with significant blind spots)... and that these deaths were preventable, people were right to be angry, and that a cycling forum couldn't exist without a political element.
I ran a music forum and thought it could be without politics, but music is art and art reflects the feelings of those on council estates and in poverty, with hard backgrounds, and addictions. They are shaped by their environment and through the art attempt to document and also shape those environments. Even for a mostly apolitical band a single song touched upon rape and opened the door to debates on rape culture and the low prosecution rate and the even lower reporting rate. A music forum that tried it's best to avoid politics couldn't exist without a political element.
And here on hacker news, that new app that is in the YC batch that allows someone to sofa surf... that's political but you just didn't know it at the time. AirBnB and so many other companies, apps, tools... have leveraged the gaps in local policies and law to fuel their margins and stock value. It is very difficult to say that even this site could exist without a political element when a lot of the technology and companies that have come about it impact so many people globally in ways that only political and legal tools can protect. I don't really believe this site can exist without a political element.
The only question (IMHO) is whether those discussions can be conducted civilly, with respect and openness, non-adversarially, and with empathy as much as possible.
No you get it! You know, in Buddhism, while progressing on the path, they say, first when you see mountains, they are just mountains. Then suddenly you see mountains and they are not mountains anymore. Then slowly you see mountains as mountains again.
Squinting! Yes good word, more squinting!
Hey Siri, define squinting: to look at someone or something with one or both eyes partly closed in an attempt to see more clearly or as a reaction to strong light.
Now I haven't read the announcement or looked into this feature myself so hopefully I'm misinformed, but the idea is so reasonable and in line with the sort of thing Google would attempt to do that it is easy to believe. They've already made active attempts to swing elections with their YouTube censorship programs; their actions around the Hunter Biden thing look terrible in hindsight. This is politics in a way that most other domains aren't. It is up there with newspapers and news media for having a political slant.
In fact, I could easily see one forum discussing the product's language policing and another one discussing its engineering. Yet a different forum might focus on its various successes and failures in gaining market share.
Context absolutely matters. And "some grey area" is really a massive grey area.
Suppose that story - hypothetically - is about an IDE that continuously logs developer activity potentially giving employers more control over workers, well, that's political. Because now that story isn't about the IDE itself, it's actually about worker rights.
Even if that same hypothetical story was really a blogpost by the makers of the IDE outlining the technical details behind such a feature... then it's still a story that fits in a wider debate regarding worker rights. One side will definitely argue that the makers are tone deaf for only providing a "technical solution" without considering it's wider impact.
> A story about the stand of the US government in the Ukranian war is political.
Well, in the same vain, a story got posted this week about SpaceX warding off a Russian attack against it's Starlink constellation over Ukraine. One could focus on the technical details of how that happened and argue that, as such, it's fitting to discuss this on this particular forum.
However, a strict "no politics" rule would be hard to enforce since the story fits into current affairs that affect public opinion regardless. Inevitably, people will expand the discussion by asking questions regarding the involvement of the U.S. in the war.
It's not just the stories that gets posted, but also the intent with which they are posted that matters, the kind of debate that posters try to elicit, and how other commenters try to bend the direction of the debate below different posts.
That's why moderation and curation are important and labor intensive. Voting comments/posts up/down doesn't improve quality of content towards an optimum level. Instead, it's a reflection of the emergent sentiment of the audience of HN, which isn't always based on reason or objective facts. Nor should it be. At the end of the day, every comment / post hides a complex human being raising their voice from their own particular bubble of perception. All one can do is acknowledge that reality and deal with it without falling into fallacies regarding absolute truths or maxims about how reality ideally ought to be.
How about "almost everything can be mapped onto a Bell curve" instead? So whereas almost everything can be remotely connected to something else if you look hard enough, there are outliers where the connection is more evident and other outliers where it get's really strained to find a connection. Politics is certainly like that.
But if the politics in everything is all that catches one's attention, then sure. But that doesn't seem all that healthy, and could be one of the reasons young people seem to struggle with more mental health issues nowadays: the demonizing of the other (party) is increasingly venturing into personality traits and identity, instead of focusing on questions of policy.
Only if you’re a politician. Hammers see nails.
As long as there are limited resources relative to demand, the distribution of those resources is politics.
It can be spending money in a household, sharing TV time with your siblings if you only have 1 TV, and it can be copyright and patent law, which gets into how the limited resource of a society’s adjudication system should be used, which can touch on using it for enforcing laws on banned plants, etc and etc.
Land use, public schools, clean air and water, and the most direct political subject of all: income/wealth distribution.
And since income/wealth gap has rapidly increased, far quicker than resources per person in the world has increased, there will be more conflict. Which manifests as politics (before physical violence).
The question is, how will we treat each other?
Technology is political. Whether it's the nature of architecture (centralised Vs decentralised), or the nature of transparency (proprietary Vs FOSS).
It's all political, imagining that we can fully pretend it's not would be a challenge.
The key is to keep the debate civil, reasoned, rational, respectful.