Like most online forums, HN discussions are dominated by people who like to spend all their time online arguing with people. It's the 80:20 principle, or the 90-9-1 principle. Largely these are early-20s, politically ignorant men, with a long tail of socially stunted "greybeards" who have not managed to find greater fulfillment in life than what online discussion forums provide. The technical topics here are frequently recycled and the quality of discussion is not that notable. I'm embarrassed it took me over a decade to reach this conclusion.

I don't think the readership of HN leans RW, but the commentary and moderation does, largely due to the fact that RW commentators are quick to flag views they disagree with, in contravention of the stated moderation standards, while "normal people" can't be bothered to engage with this kind of platform, and the moderation team is content to let this dynamic persist. Witness the flagging on this very article as an example.

Agreed. But that's why I said nazi bar. It doesn't mean everyone.

Also due to the upvote/downvote/flag system, entire narratives are controlled with a small number of accounts. It's a fundamentally broken approach to online discussions. We need to get rid of upvote/downvotes completely. Retain flagging for vetted users, and punish those who are flagging material that should not be flagged.