I don't think this post should have remained flagged. I came here tonight to see if this story had been posted to HN, and to find out what users here would say about it. The story is relevant to recent cultural changes in a lot of tech workplaces; it's on-topic. The discussion here has been civil.

Removing a well-sourced article that aims to exonerate someone who's been cancelled seems like a preemptive capitulation to fear that even by allowing discussion, HN could be tarred with the same brush. Upholding the flag demonstrates and amplifies the chilling effect on reasonable speech that's central to the article, by not-so-subtly telling users that it's verboten to even discuss it. HN shouldn't be afraid of allowing discussion around such an article.

>> “It’s impossible to be honest about this and preserve your own skin,” says a scientist who recently worked under Sabatini.

The fear exuded in this kind of statement is terrible for society, for academia and for science; whoever is right or wrong in this particular case. Whichever way the conversation evolves, the expectation must be maintained, even among people who want to silence others, that civil conversation will be allowed. That's why it's wrong to flag this and leave it flagged.