Flagging can be useful, although I wish that there were more details about why posts get flagged and dead (though of course people could be dishonest about that

Flagging can be useful, although I wish that there were more details about why posts get flagged and dead (though of course people could be dishonest about that). Those that are flagged for _legitimate_ reasons, because they're links to scams, malware, or paywalled materials are best taken out of circulation. I'm glad that moderators do this. I know Dang disfavours posts with the potential to burst into flames, and that's questionable, but somewhat okay. That's really the moderators being smart and making less work for later when a mess needs clearing up. But such preemptive policing is dangerous. Those that are flagged because they challenge the politics of the dominant creed here, are are getting more frequent, at least in the few years I've been watching HN. Flagging is used to suppress speech for sure. But flagged posts remain accessible and useful. I can usually tell when an article is flagged because it's disagreeable to a certain mindset, and then go read it. It actually signposts the things I might want to read more. What's getting jolly annoying is the rapidity with which very interesting posts get flagged while one is still reading and replying to them. This makes HN increasingly feel like a place where participation is not welcome, which is sad.