I honestly don't think this subject should be on here. I don't think it's possible for a coherent or respectful or even useful conversation to happen here. I haven't seen any conversation about this topic that hadn't gone to hell.
What does "curiosity" mean in a context like this? It certainly needs to be more than just a technical dissection of details. I think it has to do with being open to learning. For that we have to be open to each other. And for that, we have to first find some space for the other within ourselves. Comments that have to do with annihilating the other (including in virtual form, such as by defeating them in internet battle) are therefore off-topic in a thread like this, as I posted above.
(Edit: there's also a kind of curiosity in walking into the impossible to find out what's doable; and also in taking a different approach with each attempt—which is why my pinned comment in this thread is different from last time.)
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
There is real harm in spreading this information. As you may or may not know, mobs and individuals around the world are fed such false narratives that demonize Israelis/Jews. Combine this with either mental illness or religious fundamentalism and you get the kinds of lynching, hateful speech, violence threats, etc. against Israelis/Jews and sympathizers.
Is whatever "intellectual curiosity" you think you're promoting with this piece worth the health and lives of innocent people?
Yes
> Also how does that compare with the actual harm and health of innocent people mentioned in the article?
Even if the events as reported in the article are true, they are part of war. Like it or not, Gaza's citizens chose Hamas as their elected government. Said government chose to go start a war with Israel. War is not elegant, and unfortunately innocent citizens on both sides pay the price.
Well... They got 44% of the vote in 2006 and have refused to hold elections since
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/27/midd...
A smaller reason why I disagree with this is that the responses to this topic are uniquely capable of alienating large quantities of people which is counter to what we'd want for a community like this.
I have compassion and sympathy for all victims of this war, including the kids interviewed in the article, but as of right now, the information presented is dubious at best.
I think this community is better than most at keeping things analytical, and you're better than any other moderator I've encountered in decades on online communities. But it's not exactly a neutral framing to kick off the discussion. An article about the numerous rapes and tortures committed by Palestinians during October 7th and on the hostages afterwards would likewise not be the most neutral.
btw, the same was said about the Al Jazeera's reporting on the Iraq occupation, and it was equally false.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/20/what-have-open-sou...
However, if the moderation approach is going to change, I think it would be better to do so explicitly through changes to the site guidelines rather than in an ad-hoc way. I don't think that this article is covering an 'interesting _new_ phenomenon' (emph. mine) as discussed in the guidelines, and indeed most of the comments are talking about moderation policy or the conflict in general as opposed to the details presented in the article. Perhaps it would be better to have a thread explicitly focused on members of the community engaging with each other as individuals, such as a hypothetical 'Ask HN: How has conflict personally affected you?' or 'Ask HN: How/why have your views on this conflict changed over time?'
The stories that the article has to tell are important, but they aren't the thing that people are discussing here. And moderating submissions instead of explicitly discussion-focused posts invites some of the concerns about sourcing and bias that have been raised in other comments.
It won't work to add all of them to the guidelines list because that would make the list so long that few would read it, and (worse) it would make it a bureaucratic sort of document that would be most out of sync with the intended spirit. In the long run I (think I) intend to compile those explanations into short (perhaps one paragraph each) glosses on the guidelines, and make it easy to link to.
As for most commenters not discussing the details of the OP: you're right. But that may be too much to expect in this case. To be able to discuss this topic at all without combusting is already a lot. That's also, btw, why I left my pinned comment open to replies (something I never do), and why the meta (why is this on HN, etc.) discussion is not downweighted the way it normally would be.
But then allowing this discussion on here is already misguided. Call me biased, but I don't think you're going to find a ton of experts on international law and the law of nations on a site aimed at technical discussion. Even in qualified circles, this discussion is already heavily biased.
I'd argue that in order to discuss topics like these, you ought to have a guided discussion, with experts present to correct polemic statements. (such as the 2nd top comment, that is currently trying to compare international law with laws affecting individuals, which is a gross misinterpretation of the legal situation of this war.) This is how well respected journalists and news outlets do it in my country.
I've seen some variation of this sentiment both here on HN and elsewhere. It makes me wonder: is the topic so toxic that no conversation can happen at all? If that's the case, what's the appropriate forum for debate?
I'd argue that meatspace gathering places tend to not be much better (see: current debate about how this is playing out on college campuses), which has the net effect of chilling any discussion anywhere. That leaves op-ed pages, blog posts, Substacks, places where people can broadcast their opinion to the world...but not have to engage on it whatsoever. That doesn't feel like a great alternative to at least attempting to create space to talk about it.
>It makes me wonder: is the topic so toxic that no conversation can happen at all?
I believe that the topic is so toxic and emotionally charged that it's almost impossible to have meaningful conversation about it. It's the "abortion" of geopolitics, where everyone is emotionally invested in their own way, distrusts/hates the other side or has such absolute positions that there is no point in arguing.
Now, it may still be worth the attempt (which I believe is the HN moderators' position on this matter). You have a really strong point that we should put in the effort to make space for this type of conversation. Unfortunately, all the evidence has convinced me that "polite, productive conversation" and "Israel/Palestine conflict" are mutually exclusive.
I see Hacker News as a tech-related with some general interest forum. I appreciate the high standards of dialogue and commentary on this website as well as the "intellectual exploration"-esque philosophy behind it. If a topic cannot conform to the above standard, I don't think it should be here - and that's out of necessity, to protect the environment of intellectual openness here.
Unfortunately, it may also be true that it's hard to find an alternative space to discuss this in society, that perhaps friends and family or your local community is not open to this discussion. That sites like Reddit are not great places for this discussion.
But HN cannot be the "everything" place and it's in this spirit that I think we should strongly consider limiting how much of this topic we welcome here, in the interest of protecting at least one great place for tech-related (with some general interest) intellectual pursuits.
I will let you be the judge - do you really find the rest of this thread constructive?
I think this is a more convincing argument to me of why a topic may not be appropriate for this forum. As for the rest of the thread, there are obviously some very low quality comments/sub-threads. But overall I've found these to be a lot less emotionally charged.
That said, it doesn't especially matter why it's better—it is better here than elsewhere. But that's a separate question from whether it's on topic.