Sure, although it does often seem that the convention we have around it amounts to a de facto rule. And I really struggle to see how this article passes the us

Sure, although it does often seem that the convention we have around it amounts to a de facto rule. And I really struggle to see how this article passes the usual test of "satisfying intellectual curiosity". It's mostly an emotional appeal that doesn't give much information. We certainly know that atrocities took place on Oct. 7 and I'm sure none of us are surprised to hear first hand accounts from the Palestinian side that are also horrific. As many people have pointed out, the article comes from a heavily biased source. Saying that the article itself is interesting, regardless of the source, not only appears to overlook the quality of the article's content, but it also glosses over the harm that referring to biased sources does to the conversation. It seems like way oversimplifying the way that fraught conversations like this tend to go to just claim that the article itself should stand on its own. And, again, it could easily be argued that this article, in fact, doesn't stand on its own. Also, in this moment, referring me to a list of past instances of people claiming that "HN is getting too political" feels pretty dismissive. I don't doubt that people have claimed that in the past, but that's not some sort of balm that makes me feel any less justified in claiming it now.