Why?
Given the sites focus on tech and hacking, I can't fathom how this isn't worthy of HN. Sure, don't upvote it, but when a story's byline is about the "US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency" making big changes it definitely seems related to Hacker News.
I don't want to link for fear of getting flagged again but it's on the wired.com home page right now.
Once you comment and disagree with the headline it becomes automatically flagged.
These politicallly biased headlines should be taken down before anyone comments.
I do not want to see, nor are interested in, one sided opinions about either the Isreali people nor the Palestinian people. This is readily available on the open internet on news websites.
For me this allows very disagreeable headlines to remain visible for everyone to see until they are commented on or challenged.
Not really freedom of speech. More like I will get away with it until someone comments.
Some of the flags have triggered large conversations and it seems like the defense of the flagging comes down to these reasons:
1) Not related to tech
2) Overtly political article titles
3) Duplicated articles
4) HN users disagree with the political reference from article/title
Having seen so many articles flagged lately, it's hard not to feel like the #4 group is key. I think this makes sense given the cohort of HN that comes from Sillicon Valley VC culture and who are a bit reticent at the creeping politicization of tech topics.
> ... was quickly flagged. Why?
That's been happening a lot here lately. I have taken to adding the more relevant falsely flagged stories to my favorites, though I'm sure I miss many.
Posts which attempt to discuss this blackout here get rapidly flagged, even when generating quality discussion, ie [0].
Dang repeatedly claims that these flags are representative of what the community actually wants, using much the same blind-spot logic as ddxv here ('bad actors? here??'). When I asked dang if he would allow a discussion on false flags here that wouldn't be flagged itself, he basically said, 'lol no, read the rules' [1].
And taken in conjunction with Garry Tan [2] and Paul Graham's [3, 4] recent DOGE cheer-leading, another, deeper reason 'why' comes into view. It seems that the ultra wealthy, including in the tech sector (even people we really want to like and who have said smart things in the past) are all-in on supporting the admin which will be giving the .1% trillions in tax cuts. It's hard not to imagine those views filtering down to here.
So, expect this to get quickly flagged as well, if it wasn't already while I was writing this; and expect to be gaslit about it as well. This is HN now.
0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42900560
1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43058574
2 - https://x.com/garrytan/status/1886284208894890386