It seemed obvious to me that giving a quote is the most un-biased way of commenting on an article. Most of the time (like in this case) it's not actually comme

It seemed obvious to me that giving a quote is the most un-biased way of commenting on an article. Most of the time (like in this case) it's not actually commenting at all - HN is for commenting, you're right, which is why things that aren't comments tend to get moderated away. "unbiased" doesn't come into it - the goal is interesting conversation not 'unbiased' summaries. The participants' opinions and thoughts are what counts. "Bias" (i.e. having a viewpoint) beats pasting any day, in a forum. The second point is that the comment also included a non-paywalled link, Those are super useful and encouraged but you can't really use them to turn bad [non]comments into good comments. Like, there's no 'here's a bypass link and also some slurs', as a limiting case sort of example. That comment would also sensibly be flagged, no? Both of those things were valuable to me. That's great but lots of people find things that don't work on HN (for various reasons) valuable. Some people like LLM-generated comments. Some people feel some particular topic should be on the front page daily. Neither of these are unreasonable preferences but they break a messageboard with HN's goals. To advocate for some change in the way the place works, you need a better, more broadly applicable formulation than simply personal preference. Personal preference obviously matters a great deal but it's not a practical way to refine an existing thing with wide usage.