I attempted to answer that question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464, but to add a bit more: the idea on HN has always been to go by article quality, not site quality (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). An article appearing on HN is by no means an endorsement of the site as a whole, nor of anything else appearing on that site.

I would disagree with that policy in this case. In most other articles, the reader has a much better ability to understand the quality of the article from reading it. This audience is primarily technical and not political. This topic has such a long history and so much nuance to it, that an article about this topic can uniquely spread a false narrative to a non political reader. That being said, not every reader has little political understanding which makes having a discussion even harder. Imagine a physicist, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and artist trying to have a discussion about "reflections in time." With that topic, while a discussion may be difficult, it at worst isnt harmful. In this case, a false narrative can and has been used to further hateful ideas, hate speech, and actual crime. With those negative possibilities here, I think we should be erring on the side of caution and not on the side of curiosity.

A smaller reason why I disagree with this is that the responses to this topic are uniquely capable of alienating large quantities of people which is counter to what we'd want for a community like this.

With respect, Al Jazeera is one of the most biased sources covering the conflict. They are still lying about the rocket explosion at the hospital for example.

Even without lying, even if this article had been published by the Guardian or Atlantic this wouldn't be a quality article. It's a one sided witness statement with no information on wether Al Jazeera reached out to the IDF to obtain some sort of aknowledgement (which you'd do if you're confident in your story, just so you can say "IDF denied to comment").

I have compassion and sympathy for all victims of this war, including the kids interviewed in the article, but as of right now, the information presented is dubious at best.

Are you saying this article is dangerous because it may further engage folks that have been already enraged due to having been misinformation elsewhere to the point it could result in violence? Also how does that compare with the actual harm and health of innocent people mentioned in the article?

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618540. We're trying for a different spirit in this thread.

> Are you saying this article is dangerous because it may further engage folks that have been already enraged due to having been misinformation elsewhere to the point it could result in violence?

Yes

> Also how does that compare with the actual harm and health of innocent people mentioned in the article?

Even if the events as reported in the article are true, they are part of war. Like it or not, Gaza's citizens chose Hamas as their elected government. Said government chose to go start a war with Israel. War is not elegant, and unfortunately innocent citizens on both sides pay the price.

> Gaza's citizens chose Hamas as their elected government

Well... They got 44% of the vote in 2006 and have refused to hold elections since

so? one hostage was able to break free and run away only to be taken back by gazan civilians to hamas. sp hamas support is high there still

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/27/midd...