zlacker

>>edgefi+(OP)
You're arguing with and algorithm that says if comments > points then downweight. It's to avoid typical internet flame wars, it's not some rejection by the community or whatever you're inferring. It's just that it rehashes tired and well trodden internet discussions that aren't very interesting. What would you have rather seen happen? It stays at the top so people can pile on about how bad climate change is?

Edit: I'm wrong about the reason, because the comments aren't more than the points. But the point stands, it's algorithmic, it's not some conspiracy against discussing climate change. It's that it's a boring discussion that doesn't add to anyone's understanding.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36187203

>>versio+L
"The cause is algorithmic. This is the algorithm.

EDIT: The post doesn't follow the algorithm. But still, it's algorithmic, stop being conspiratorial."

>>stonie+x2
Interesting take.

There is something called a flame war detector that I've seen referred to by the moderator. From experience this kicks in when comments overwhelm points as I said. I expect it's more sophisticated than that, and as I pointed out, comment to point ratio was clearly not the trigger here.

The next post plausible explanation would be a moderator lowered it's weighting because the discussion was skewing into a rehash of boring arguments.

I can also picture that some people flagged it (though usually this gets a [flagged] appended so it's unlikely. Maybe that qualifies as the community rejecting it and legitimizes the OP's complaint.

The least likely thjng possible is some kind of conspiracy to bury climate change stories.