It's only tangently relevant, and the headline is inaccurate. That's not the (specific) point though. You and I can debate whether or not it's relevant 'til t

It's only tangently relevant, and the headline is inaccurate. That's not the (specific) point though. You and I can debate whether or not it's relevant 'til the cows come home. The problem is, if anyone disagrees that it is relevant, they have no way to express that except in comments, which is a costly affair that doesn't really change anyone's mind. For example, you can argue that the other article that hit the front page, aptly titled "Google the Pimp Strikes Again with More Porn!", is also relevant to Startup News; after all, it's talking about Google, and Google was a startup. But if Joe thinks it's a waste of time, or even a detriment to the community, he has no choice but to ignore it (News.YC doesn't have a 'hide' feature) or comment on it, which throws him into the arms of anonymous downvoters. "...the community chooses what they find relevant..." Well, in theory. Back when the community was small, yeah. But right now, it only takes one other person to agree with you for your article to be featured front and center. Someone else thought that finding porn with random Google keywords with SafeSearch blatantly off was hilarious and relevant, but alas, not everything that's hilarious is Startup News worthy (Will it Blend, etc), and things that are only tangently relevant will probably find a happier home in Reddit.