So there's no place for reasoned discussion on topics that are clearly of interest to many here? That sounds like a poor excuse for improper moderation. Some

So there's no place for reasoned discussion on topics that are clearly of interest to many here? That sounds like a poor excuse for improper moderation. Some level of post level moderation I can understand, but to the degree practiced here, you might as well have sanctioned curators instead of moderators for that - at the least, it'd be far more accurate, and far more transparent. Instead we get a heavyhanded version that allows a few to destroy possible reasoned discussion by squelching it as a side-effect of this rationale, and instead we get lots of topics that don't really foster discussion, are often not interesting or important (even to those intellectually minded) - there are plenty of banal articles on startups that get upvoted and end up on the front page, but no similar policy gets instituted simply because they are "not controversial", and yet they take up the same space, and certainly are less fulfilling. The process is opaque, and I know I'm not the only one here who has questioned this. There are sometimes situations where flags are deemed inappropriate, and yet the effects don't get raised when moderators even acknowledge when the flags were incorrect.