dang, I think HN guidelines are fundamental to a great Internet community and want to help support it. I'm not complaining and don't care about the treatment o

dang, I think HN guidelines are fundamental to a great Internet community and want to help support it. I'm not complaining and don't care about the treatment of this one comment, but I do care if the rules of HN have changed: Specifically, criticism of Musk attracts disproportionate down-votes (again, I don't care, but it seems obvious from my experience) and mention of Trump is obviously inflammatory. But it's important that the angry mob doesn't intimidate reasonable people into silence about important issues, nor exhaust and frustrate mods into enforcing that silence to some degree - the latter worries me a little, based on your response, though it would be very unusual for HN mods (but OTOH Trump is an unusual situation) and of course I can't read your mind. My hope is that you have misunderstood the comment, which would be fine, and that there are not new rules and they don't apply as you seem to imply. Perhaps I didn't communicate well enough to be understood; certainly it could be shorter, but that usually doesn't attract moderator criticism (I tried to break it down with some structure, as you see). Specifically, I don't understand: > not political Politics is frequently discussed on HN some having nothing to do with the tech industry. Also, the political practices of other SV figures are widely discussed, from Travis Kalanick to Brendan Eich to many others, and some of those issues has nothing to do with tech or business. We discuss discrimination against women and minorities in tech, and also in society in general, for example. You obviously don't need me to tell you all that, so I'm not sure what you mean. And the issue I raise is politics specifically as a business practice, in a way that directly affects the tech industry and many HN readers in a serious way: Corruption distorts the market, and forces competitors into similarly corrupt practices in order to compete. The tech industry probably doesn't want success to depend on who is closer to the politician in charge. The whole startup culture depends on access to the market by weaker players, and the opportunity to succeed largely on merit. Political corruption and crony capitalism are very serious threats to SV. (In fact, I believe this issue may become the most consequential in tech for many years to come, in large part due to Musk's current actions. Will his competitors now also have to kiss up to the President? And then their competitors? Will opportunists seize a potential advantage? If I'm right, I can hardly think of a more important issue for HN.) > not political broadsheets I'm not sure what is meant here: A broadsheet is a newspaper, and a political broadsheet would have many stories on many different political topics. IME the term usually is applied to second-rate partisan publications filled with loose editorial against the opposition. In comparison, my comment is one specific allegation with a long list of supporting links: The allegation that Musk is engaging in political corruption to the significant benefit of his businesses. I step through the argument (read the statements beginning each section) and provide supporting links for each step. That is, it's not a list or variety of loosely related stories - perhaps the number of links gave the wrong impression. It's also not loose partisan editorial, but better supported than > 99.5% of HN comments (and better supported than almost 100% of partisan editorials, but that's a low standard). As cited, multiple major investment banks have advised their clients to invest on the basis that the allegation is true or at least a serious possibility, the allegation is widespread beyond that (search for "musk trump"), and it's cited from many serious sources such as the NY Times. See my post further down the thread for more documentation and support. I think I do a good job of avoiding inflammatory language; I am open to input and even note sources that are less-than-optimal, undermining my own point. Sometimes unpopular facts are inflammatory, however, but I don't think those should be avoided (though they should be well-supported and stated without additional provocation); they are often the most important ones. > boilerplate I think it's certainly it's not boilerplate, defined as standard formulations uniformly found in certain types of legal documents or news stories - that is, copy-and-paste talking points. Perhaps that's not what you meant? It is completely original, composed with greater time and effort than most HN comments.