3 ms·
The problem (which I think you seem to be acknowledging) is that as I've pointed out in the original post, the lack of clarity seems to end up in a mysterious (
by mellosouls 6y ago
The problem (which I think you seem to be acknowledging) is that as I've pointed out in the original post, the lack of clarity seems to end up in a mysterious (arbitrary? biased?) view on what is ok to cover.
RBG: ok.
Trump Replacement for RBG: "political".
Trump Tax: ok.
- tom_mellior 6y agoYes, I agree that the lack of clarity leads to these ambiguities. I think it would be impossible to formulate really clear rules on what sort of politics is accepted. People definitely want to discuss "politics with a tech angle" stories, like ones concerning Uber. Many people also definitely want to discuss "very important pure politics" stories like this one, or RBG's death, or paternity leave. At the same time I think most people don't want HN to turn into a "general politics is just as accepted as tech stuff" kind of discussion forum. The line will always be very fuzzy. Maybe the difference between RBG's death and her possible replacement is that RBG has already had a huge, concrete impact on the (US-centric) world, whereas her replacement's impact is speculative at this point.