zlacker

>>cwan+(OP)
It certainly does seem that HN has become increasingly more political in recent days. Yes, I can understand a post on body-scanner technology and it's applications to travel security, but do we really need to see blog posts about how person n opted out, or how person x experienced an unusual pat-down? Yes, for Americans (and non-Americans alike), these are important issues, but HN does not need to become an aggregate site for stories such as these.

There is a strong commitment by the community to prevent the site becoming like digg, reddit, or slashdot. Losing focus on the topics that brought us here in the first place (technology, startup culture, and programming) is the first step on that path in my opinion.

All I can ask is please, try not to submit/vote up stories which are not particularly related to tech. It's not what I'm interested in discussing in this particular venue.

Or maybe I'm just in the minority. I guess time will tell.

P.S. Just because you put the word "Hacker" in your article/title, doesn't mean it belongs here.

>>amelim+u1
It would be completely ridiculous to try to remove political discussion from HN.

Politics is involved with _everything_ the world has to offer; and more specifically, politics is fundamentally bound to technology.

The fact that people like making 'cool stuff', will always have a flip-side. We need to be able to talk about the way that technology is utilised and that (necessarily) involves political discussion.

Without this kind of discussion, people involved in the tech industry are destined to become unthinking drones .. consideration of ethics and politics is essential if technology stands any chance of making the world a better place.

>>lwhi+W3
I think this type of discussion is much better suited for personal environments. Strike this discussion up at the next HN Meetup in your area, or with your co-workers when you go out for drinks after work. Anonymous discussion of such topics on a news collection website will neither change minds nor produce any constructive debate.

>>amelim+i5
Why? Why shouldn't we all be willing to change our minds? Why shouldn't we be willing to debate and explore a subject in depth?

Your point of view completely baffles me.

>>lwhi+w5
Perhaps you are misunderstanding my post, but I never said that people shouldn't change their minds or debate a subject (in fact I vehemently believe that they should). It's simply this forum is not a constructive place for that type of discussion. Debating online, through anonymous accounts, provides little context towards other people's experiences. Additionally, you lose the nuances of language and body language, which often leads to misunderstandings. Personally, I don't feel it's an effective medium for debate.

But clearly, you disagree with me.

>>amelim+K6
Additionally, you lose the nuances of language and body language, which often leads to misunderstandings.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that's reason to _not_ try to have decent discussions about politics when it relates to technology.

HN already has systems in place which make people pause before replying consecutively, which goes a long way to discouraging flame wars.

In any case, politics doesn't need to be about enforcing a point of view - it's about exploring options.

Net neutrality is almost completely political - should discussion about this be killed?

Copyright legislation is almost completely political - should this be killed too??

Limiting discussion to things which feel 'safe' isn't constructive imo.