I saw another newer post that was probably made because the poster didn't see this post, and a comment made in there linked to this discussion.
I saw another newer post that was probably made because the poster didn't see this post, and a comment made in there linked to this discussion.
Supposedly posts with very high comments/upvote ratio are automatically classified as toxic and downranked.
That combined with random users flagging it, presumably.
In any case, seems more algorithmic than editorial (which is not to say that the latter never occurs around here in general)
HNs is a fairly typical "lock threads that degrade to flamewars" strategy that i first encountered more than 20 years ago.
they get merged to a single discussion.
This post had about 60 upvotes where the one that the comments go moved from was at something like 175. So it basically kills a posts ability to gain traction.
One answer might be the same cowardice seen at ABC. But that's just one of the possibilities.
it is of course in the interests of billionaire-owned companies like YC to keep the community all about "hacking" and "getting VC money" and away from rightfully discussing the most alarming period in the US' history since the Civil War. because hackers need to be at their screens spinning more gold for them and not getting disillusioned by the ongoing collapse of society into an authoritarian dystopia.
That in dark times there is a tendency for all open discussion venues to descend into the same pits.
And there is value in avoiding that.
The fact that this discussion is still here strikes me as moderation in moderation. A nice balance.
Every user has their own list of which stories ought to clear the bar for frontpage representation, and it's impossible to include them all. Frontpage space is the scarcest resource that HN has (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). As a result, there's no HN reader who gets the frontpage they want, including us. This is baked into the fundamentals of how the site is designed, unless and until we start customizing the frontpage per user preferences.
There's another important aspect that I wrote about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306 and still haven't explained very well. In that post it's called "the temporal decay of interestingness in any sequence of related stories"—a clumsy phrase—but if you follow the argument, the conclusion it's impossible to prioritize political stories by importance on HN, even if everyone were to agree about what the important stories actually are.
I think your immediately following phrase captures the idea well: "Curiosity withers under repetition," and that's compounded by topical subjects inherently being ephemeral.
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5289315/trump-week-in-r...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/11/musk-trum...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/us/politics/trump-policy-...
If people can't keep up, or interest decays, the opposition lose weight.
The times are such that I don't think that policy is tenable.
And I hope we can return soon enough to a time when that policy will be tenable.