I wish HN users who want HN to be about politics would be honest about simply wanting HN to be a political echo chamber of their preferred flavor, instead of hiding behind the flimsy excuses like "everything is political actually".

Does your same argument not also apply to people who want HN to be 'non-political'? Since just from your post history recently I can see that you've leapt into some particularly political posts of your own [1] [2]. I'm particularly open about what I believe and post in, but usually people that say they want something non-political actually indicates that they precisely want an echo chamber.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46614467

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46419993

I don’t think people actually want yet another echo chamber. Anyone who has been exercising even a modicum of critical thinking sees where echo chambers lead.

I think a forum where bad faith polarizers are downvoted and good faith open minded discussion is rewarded would go a long ways.

Do you understand the magnitude of the thing are you asking for?

Trying to maintain a civilized discussion about modern politics is like walking a tightrope. You can say "anyone who knows what a tightrope is sees that falling off it would be bad", and it's true, but, does saying that mean that you'll avoid the fall? The failure mode is extremely obvious but not at all easy to avoid.

If you don't have an intuition of "politics are inherently corrosive to human minds", I suggest you get one. It's not impossible to have a civilized discussion of politics, but it is unlikely and unnatural and unstable. It's very, very, very hard to set up and maintain an environment like this in practice.

Every place on the internet where discussion on politics is "encouraged" is a heavy handed echo chamber. I think people wanting to discuss politics here specifically want to engage in a reasonably unbiased moderated venue, and people not wanting to discuss politics either want to focus on hacker news (very reasonable) or keep their politics over at [echo chamber X/Y/Z] (bad for society by isolating people in self reinforcing bubbles and not engaging outside of them). I don't envy Dan's or Tom's job, but am thankful for the balance they strike.

That seems analogous to the "atheism is a religion" fallacy. No, not wanting to see politics in one very specific location is clearly not a political stance.

Where does "politics" end, then? What about articles pointing out a tech company's ethical wrongdoing? Or about their legal troubles? How about the technology behind war fighting drones? Or software's role in mass surveillance, war crimes and ethnic cleansing? Are these all off limits because they are inherently political? By banning these and similar topics, HN's purpose becomes more and more about whitewashing the industry and less and less about honest discussion.

> I wish HN users who want "no politics" would admit that they are just asking for a different kind of political bias from the site.

I won't admit that, because it's not true. You saying that it's true doesn't make it so.

> I wish HN users who want "no politics" would admit that they are just asking for a different kind of political bias from the site.

You're asking for them to admit something that isn't true. There's nothing political about recognizing that political discussions are a complete shitshow and wanting them to not crowd out everything else.