I'm not a moderator but FWIW: This link is regarding a technical exploit of an IT system.

Whether the goal of this exploit is profit, blackmail, political, activism, curiosity, etc -- there is nonetheless definitely a technical/IT angle that makes it interesting for visitors like myself.

I imagine HN wanted to protect it's community from something they viewed as tangential to their focus but possibly highly vitriolic in content (to the degree that they influenced the submission, which I'm not sure the level of). Alternatively, it could have been a community self-policing, by flagging articles that they thought were poisonous, or that were viewed as promoting misinformation (do the degree that happened. I haven't followed this closely, but that seems to be a common occurrence shortly after a disaster).

You can't see a difference between hackers talking about a hacking story and hackers talking about a shooting story, or are you just being facetious?