zlacker

>>dang+(OP)
This is a terrible decision. The tech industry has built powerful tools of social control, and runs vast databases of private data on pretty much everyone in the country. We have a golden period of forty-some days before a new administration comes to power that has shown every intent of using that information to deport people and create a national Muslim registry.

We need to be talking about the political implications of what we've built, and figuring out how to fix our mess. This is like the period before the hurricane: everyone should be busy boarding up windows, and you can't do that if you decide you're just not going to talk about the coming storm because it makes you feel bad.

>>idlewo+ck
This moratorium will only last a week. I think our discourse will survive. Though political discussion is essential, I think you'd agree it has downsides when there's too much of it or when everyone considers it high-stakes.

The way I see it, the mods are asking us all to hold our political tongues and see what the comments feel like. They're very clear that it's an experiment. Maybe when politics resume seven days from now, people will remember what quality discourse looks like. This is mods trying to keep the conversation good.

>>ucario+hB
It will only last a week... a week in which the president-elect is meeting with some top Silicon Valley people. And a week in which any discussion or stories about that will be conveniently automatically off-topic.

>>uberno+G33
Obviously that's a pure coincidence. The idea that HN moderators have prior information about presidential meetings is (from where I sit) completely silly, and certainly totally wrong.

>>dang+mo3
> The idea that HN moderators have prior information about presidential meetings is (from where I sit) completely silly,

It is silly, but not completely silly.

One doesn't have to cross over into tinfoil-hat territory to wonder if sama, paulg, or other YC partners knew about the meeting ahead of time. Assuming they knew, it then isn't outlandish to wonder if they nudged the moderators into doing the experiment now as opposed to some other time without disclosing the reason.

That said, I don't subscribe to this chain of suppositions (or at least, I don't assign it more than ~10% chance of being true).

In any case, even if any YC partners did know about the meeting, I imagine they would be paying more attention to the absence of YC portfolio companies from the invitation list rather than considering new moderation policies to shape discourse on HN to their (supposed) advantage.

> and certainly totally wrong.

Having little reason to doubt you, and considerably more to take you at your word, this is more than good enough for me under the circumstances.