I am skeptical that there are a lot of participants here, including me, who wouldn't have been unhappy if they could not participate in that discussion. Contrary to your assertion that leaving posts like that is necessary to retain the trust of the community, I think the result is the opposite. Another aspect of trust is evenhanded enforcement. I don't understand how various comments responding to posts which are obvious flamebait are criticized while letting the original non-guideline-compliant, inciting item stand. Similarly, but less so for [2] - Eurovision?
As a counterexample, I would suggest [3] which I suppose fits the guidelines of important news that members might miss otherwise.
[1] Israel committing genocide in Gaza, scholars group says [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45094165]
[2] Ireland will not participate in Eurovision if Israel takes part [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45210867]
[3] Ceasefire in Gaza approved by Israeli cabinet [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45534202]
First, both [1] and [2] spent no more than 32 minutes on the front page. [2] only spent 5 minutes on the front page. We turned off the flags and allowed the discussion to continue. Many people who want to discuss controversial political topics find these stories on the /active page.
> The title of [1] alone would seem to immediately invite a deletion
We never delete anything (except when the submitter/commenter asks us to, and it's something that had no replies and little attention). That's part of how we maintain trust. Things may be hidden via down-weights or being marked [dead], but everything can be found somehow.
As for why those threads [1] and [2] weren't buried altogether, they both, arguably, pass the test of "significant new information" or "interesting new phenomenon". Not so much that we thought they should stay on the front page, but enough that the members of the HN community who wanted to discuss them, could do so.
> I am skeptical that there are a lot of participants here, including me, who wouldn't have been unhappy if they could not participate in that discussion.
This is what can only be learned when you do our job. Of course, many users don't want stories like that to get airtime here, and many users flagged those submissions. But may people do want to discuss them, hence we see many upvotes and comments on those threads, and we hear a lot of complaints if they "disappear" altogether.
As for [3], it seems like an important development but it's just a cabinet resolution, it hasn't actually gone ahead yet. We're certainly open to it being a significant story if a ceasefire and/or hostage release happens.
I hope this helps with the understanding of these things. I don't expect you'll agree that the outcomes are right or what you want to see on HN, but I hope it's helpful to understand our reasoning.
I intended [3] to be an example of a submission related to this same topic which was not in such obvious violation of any guidelines. Consequently it did not become a flame war. Perhaps also consequently it did not garner as much attention.
For posts like these, there is a clear tension between what people want to discuss and what conforms to the guidelines. There are countless admonitions here about this place not becoming reddit. For these topics, you seem to be over-weighting participant preference in the direction of becoming more like the bad parts of reddit.
There are many examples of posts which violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines. From what you've written here, it sounds like there's a shadow guideline - if enough people (i.e., a mob) want to see something here, then it stays, regardless.
Here's a recent example [1]. Why isn't this dead as a violation of every guideline?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45601853 (Palestinian bodies returned by Israel show signs of torture and execution)
> Here's a recent example [1]. Why isn't this dead as a violation of every guideline?
It is dead. It spent no time on the front page (hence we didn't see it) and received only one comment. This looks like HN's guidelines, systems and organic community processes working perfectly. What makes you think otherwise?
> Maybe you can explain your moderation philosophy because, based on our discussion here, it's completely opaque to me. And maybe that explanation should be included in the guidelines.
I'll repeat what I've tried to convey to you in this discussion:
- We moderate to retain the the trust of the whole community across the spectrum of opinion.
- Mainstream news, regardless of the topic, qualifies as being in-scope for HN if it is "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" (that's verbatim from the guidelines) and/or contains "significant new information" (that term is used routinely in moderator comments).
> There are many examples of posts which violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines. From what you've written here, it sounds like there's a shadow guideline - if enough people (i.e., a mob) want to see something here, then it stays, regardless.
I've responded to all the once you've cited. The one you cited above was dead. The ones you cited previously were (arguably) "significant new information", though we didn't give them front page exposure.
You haven't cited any posts that "violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines". I'm happy to respond to any further examples that you can cite.
And once again I encourage you to email us to discuss further, rather than adding more comments a weeks-old thread that few people, including us, are likely to see. Several of the most active HN users email us regularly to discuss these matters.
There are many larger and more significant injustices happening in the world and if it is important for Israel/Gaza to be discussed here, why are these other ones the victims of concern fatigue? The point is often made by commenters that the forum is too Western-centric for their liking. Your justification for allowing the Israel/Gaza discussion referred to it being of interest to a Western audience. Maybe that's a bug and not a feature and the reason Gaza is front of mind for this community is that there is insufficient exposure to the difficulties of the wider world.
This particular comment was, I thought, unrelated to the issue of politics insinuating itself here and represented a reasonable observation in the context of the original post.