zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...), so I've turned off the flags on this submission.

If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." We don't want political or nationalistic flamewar here, and any substantive point can be made without it.

>>dang+Jl1
Dan there’s no sugarcoating this - you’ve got it wrong on this one. I say this as a supporter of your moderation policies in general. The sooner you reverse this decision, the better for everyone.

>>nindal+CA1
That's certainly possible! But I would need to hear an argument about why, which actually addresses the reasons I've given in my responses in this thread. So far I haven't heard that. In fact, no one seems to have even tried (maybe I missed it amid the inundation - I've been trying and failing to keep up for a couple hours now).

>>dang+wX1
Hi, your job is rough sometimes, and hats off. Here is the one of the best arguments I have found here as to why the quality of this article is highly questionable:

> I know nothing of him, but given that there's an entire paragraph about Jens Stoltenberg where almost every sentence is just completely factually wrong in a way that could be verified to be wrong with a look at the first paragraph on his Wikipedia page, I'm not inclined to take what he says seriously.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34717803

This is something that could be verified quickly by you and others.

>>consum+SN3
Isn't this instead a great argument for why the article should be discussed here rather than banned from discussion? It's a great comment, and exactly the sort of useful criticism of the article that might actually change people's minds. If the article is hidden by flagging, these points will never be raised, and everyone stays at their initial position. But by allowing discussion, this insightful information can be shared and learning can happen. This is a good thing, right?

>>nkurz+7f4
If people didn't just upvote things based on the headline due to confirmation bias, and if this[0] didn't exist, then sure.

Flagging exists for a reason, doesn't it?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect