What happens when every HN post is flagged?

Vouched as it seemed like it's only been three ... four or ten days since the topic was last raised ...

Controversial topics aren't the problem, it's the level of intelligence, ability to observe forum etiquette (read faq / guides) as well as the ability to read the room before adding a comment - one that falls towards an effort to post something of additional value or quality.

Just search Dang's recent posts - they should clear up any nuances to be had, stuff which seems to fall outside of the guide lines.

As for flagging, as I view the dead threads as well, so much is just a repeat of earlier posts hours in not a hour before - maybe from a slightly different angle ... an inch or two to the left or right. I think, IMHO, it would be hard to find a thread that was flagged that wasn't something similarly posted in the last few days.

Articles without references and fact checking seem to be obvious targets for getting flagged. Unfortunately innocent articles that provoke toxic comments seem to get flagged too. I really enjoy hacker news because of the quality of articles that make it in the list. However I do feel that the moderators and maybe some commenters have their own motives. This is a larger free speech issue and not a hackernews issue. There are increasingly less and less decent forums for meaningful discourse.

Arguably this leads to less thoughtful discussion as participants are under the gun to quickly post their thoughts before the story is flagged. I have been guilty of this.

i was just reading the very active comments on a post about climate change, and it just.. disapeared. Is HN hostile to climate change posts?

Why is not upvoting enough? Kill flags and change it to "reported" for scams only.

If someone doesn't like the post then don't upvote. See a bunch of stuff on hn you don't like then start upvoting and submitting stuff you like.

There are many people that assume flagged posts are, “a topic of particular interest”, when in reality it’s just a low quality flame war.

that's like asking what if every kids in the class gets an A, or every kids gets an F. Too extreme. We grade on a curve.

Flagging can be useful, although I wish that there were more details about why posts get flagged and dead (though of course people could be dishonest about that).

Those that are flagged for _legitimate_ reasons, because they're links to scams, malware, or paywalled materials are best taken out of circulation. I'm glad that moderators do this. I know Dang disfavours posts with the potential to burst into flames, and that's questionable, but somewhat okay. That's really the moderators being smart and making less work for later when a mess needs clearing up. But such preemptive policing is dangerous.

Those that are flagged because they challenge the politics of the dominant creed here, are are getting more frequent, at least in the few years I've been watching HN. Flagging is used to suppress speech for sure.

But flagged posts remain accessible and useful. I can usually tell when an article is flagged because it's disagreeable to a certain mindset, and then go read it. It actually signposts the things I might want to read more.

What's getting jolly annoying is the rapidity with which very interesting posts get flagged while one is still reading and replying to them. This makes HN increasingly feel like a place where participation is not welcome, which is sad.