I'm curious why then these stories should all be classified as political? If Microsoft was doing this - by itself, it would be a different story, right? Then, and only in contexts like that of which are deemed and vetted as technically founded, can this discussion continue? I get it - the politics of the conversation "get in the way" per se. However to address your point - there is no way to vet a lot of this information as it's not verifiable, that's the problem. If the iPhone had an embedded back door and now documents came to light showing how a new kind of processor has been hidden in the silicone, yet Apple wouldn't provide documentation around it - that conversation can't happen because there's no verifiable yes or no answer? There's a million ways you can spin a closed minded approach. It seems to me as if you're trying to build a box around very static content, of which HN is not.

I agree that HN is useful when you can take something away from it, learn from it. However, in all fairness, the essay you linked to says nothing about a strict guideline about "technical" discussions. It's also not addressing this grey area where technical problems, that are not verifiable, and are tied to government all intersect. To me that makes this topic not a closed case of binary true or false regarding it's place on HN.

That's why I like HN though, there are a lot of smart people to discuss these sort of issues - technical or technically related.

If you can't see the difference between a political/religious discussion and a technical discussion, then we will never come to any kind of agreement on this topic, because my entire basis for thinking submissions should be removed is because they're too political and not technical enough.

If you're just arguing a level of degree, then that's a non-starter; the HN admins are the arbiters of degree, and will decide which discussions to keep around and which not to. That's how it's always been. In fact, this whole discussion is at least partially moot, given the fact that this very poll was created by a user. There is no indication that the people in charge of HN care about this issue, at all.

HN is useful because the commenters are highly knowledgable in their technical field, and the comments these people leave and the discussions these people foster are unlike anywhere else on the Internet. These technical people are not useful for political commentary. Politics is hard, and HN turns into an echo chamber very quickly. It's useless, and should therefore be stopped.

I would just say that it's unfortunate you're unable to concede that technical and political items can and will intersect.

Good luck in your quest for a binary reality and acceptance of the current state of affairs based solely in the fact that an ideal should be preserved for reasons of technical merit alone. Unfortunately for you political commentary will continue, especially along the lines of this topic, and if it is pushed into submission I would gather the majority would call it out for what it is.

You're generalizing, when I haven't been. I'm speaking very specifically about individual stories related to the Snowden leaks.

This isn't about my life outlook or my political views or if my daddy loved me when I was a kid, it's about the flood of nontechnical stories being submitted, and the worthlessness of the subsequent comments sections.

What you don't seem to understand is that nothing on HN is going to change as a result of this poll. HN admins are holden to no one, they act independently of HN users.