3 ms·

It's true that US state legislators propose a lot of whackjob bills that get exploited for headlines and then die. They usually don't have 5 co-sponsors, though

It's true that US state legislators propose a lot of whackjob bills that get exploited for headlines and then die. They usually don't have 5 co-sponsors, though, not even out of 110 in a chamber.

tomhow 1y ago
The guidelines already state that "most stories about politics" are off topic, "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". We've had plenty of stories about censorship of adult content lately. Politicians campaigning to censor adult content is nothing new. We don't need to feed their eternal hunger for attention. The rest of the internet can do that just fine. If and when this ever becomes something that meets the HN guidelines, it can have its due attention.
- tastyface 1y ago
  And yet you regularly disable flags for tech-irrelevant current events with limited discussion potential (Hulk Hogan death, Venezuela boat strike, etc.) while keeping flags enabled for comprehensively researched articles like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 I am concerned you do not see your own biases in play.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    I've responded to you before about Hulk Hogan, but I'll elaborate further. A celebrity death is both "significant new information" and also not usually worth being on the front page of HN. We turned off the flags on the submission because it's a bit unseemly to have [flagged][dead] tags on an obituary post. We'd do that for any celebrity obituary post we see flagged. But we also let it to drop off very quickly and, with our help, it spent no more than 10 minutes on the front page. Regarding political posts, there will always be grey areas and different people feeling strongly about whether or not particular posts should or should not be discussed. We're always looking for the test of whether the story of evidence of an "interesting new phenomenon", and whether it's a topic that HN can have a healthy, curious discussion about. Our bias is for HN to be a place for curious discussions rather than rage-filled flamewars, to whatever extent we can influence that.

It's true that US state legislators propose a lot of whackjob bills that get exploited for headlines and then die. They usually don't have 5 co-sponsors, though, not even out of 110 in a chamber.

tomhow 1y ago

The guidelines already state that "most stories about politics" are off topic, "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". We've had plenty of stories about censorship of adult content lately. Politicians campaigning to censor adult content is nothing new. We don't need to feed their eternal hunger for attention. The rest of the internet can do that just fine. If and when this ever becomes something that meets the HN guidelines, it can have its due attention.

tastyface 1y ago
And yet you regularly disable flags for tech-irrelevant current events with limited discussion potential (Hulk Hogan death, Venezuela boat strike, etc.) while keeping flags enabled for comprehensively researched articles like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 I am concerned you do not see your own biases in play.
- tomhow 1y ago
  I've responded to you before about Hulk Hogan, but I'll elaborate further. A celebrity death is both "significant new information" and also not usually worth being on the front page of HN. We turned off the flags on the submission because it's a bit unseemly to have [flagged][dead] tags on an obituary post. We'd do that for any celebrity obituary post we see flagged. But we also let it to drop off very quickly and, with our help, it spent no more than 10 minutes on the front page. Regarding political posts, there will always be grey areas and different people feeling strongly about whether or not particular posts should or should not be discussed. We're always looking for the test of whether the story of evidence of an "interesting new phenomenon", and whether it's a topic that HN can have a healthy, curious discussion about. Our bias is for HN to be a place for curious discussions rather than rage-filled flamewars, to whatever extent we can influence that.