You ignored my question, so I'll answer it: there isn't anything in the second half of the article that would change the moderation call here.

You guys seem to be seizing on my saying I didn't read the whole article as if it were a horrifying gotcha. Let me try to disabuse you of that. It isn't necessary to read every word of every article to make reasonable moderation calls, and that's lucky, because it would be physically impossible to do so. I can barely keep up with the titles.

I haven't overridden the will of the community because the community has no single will on this. It's divided, along obvious political faultlines. It's not my job to align with any political view, including my own. The moderation principle on HN is simple and clear: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Literally anyone with strong political views can expect to occasionally encounter something on HN that outrages them to the bone; if not, then we're doing a lousy job, because one thing's clear: intellectual curiosity ranges across political fences.