zlacker

>>capabl+(OP)
> Still, as an occasional reader, I have noticed certain trends. When stories that focus on structural barriers faced by women in the workplace, or on diversity in tech, or on race or masculinity—stories, admittedly, that are more intriguing to me, a person interested in the humanities, than stories on technical topics—hit the front page, users often flag them, presumably for being off topic, so fast that hardly any comments accrue.

I have noticed this trend for a long time also, and well before this article was first written. It seems to go in waves though I'll cautiously say that it seems to have gotten somewhat better in recent years. I remember a time in the mid-2010s when these kinds of stories would disappear almost instantaneously. Now some of these articles and topics get a good number of upvotes and occasionally even substantive dialogue.

That said, the comments sections on these articles do tend to devolve pretty quickly.

>>belfal+Nh
That kind of stuff has infected so much of modern discourse, if people want to talk about it there are plenty of forums for it. Why should we all stop what we're doing and prioritize discussing a niche political cause who's proponents have been blackmailing people everywhere into paying attention to them and have now come to dominate all sorts of forums and secure power, ironically with no benefit to the people they feign support for.

And when people say they want it discussed, they don't mean they want to read diverse opinions, they just mean they want to see orthodoxy regurgitated.

>>versio+Zy
Political threads often do go that way, and I understand the frustration. We don't want regurgitation—that follows from what we're trying to optimize for: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....

But the question of how to handle politics on HN is not simple. By the same principle of trying to optimize for curiosity, some content with political overlap is interesting and belongs here. The questions are which forms of it, how much, which particular links, etc.. I feel like after 10 years we arrived at a pretty coherent and stable general answer to that. Not that we get every specific call right—we don't. But the general principle has held up.

For anyone wondering what I'm talking about, here are some past explanations:

>>22902490 (April 2020)

>>21607844 (Nov 2019)

and some related points:

>>23959679 (July 2020)

>>17014869 (May 2018)

and there are lots more at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... covering this.

>>dang+yA
@dang I hope you write a book someday on everything you've learned as the main mod of HN for the past decade or however long you've been doing it.

It would be an absolute treasure trove of how to manage public forums and social media, especially as it evolves from a small niche community to a larger one, maintaining as much of its original character as possible, and in a highly politicized, adversarial, and mis/dis-info saturated information environment.

Would be a fascinating read.

>>SkyMar+HG
Hopefully he'd include an entire chapter on why he and HN failed so spectacularly at pretty much every turn during the pandemic, especially when it came to the lab leak theory discussions.

>>Mounta+jJ
I'm not sure what you mean by failed spectacularly, but if I'm reading you right, then your comment is a good example of a reliable phenomenon: nearly everyone with strong passions on a political topic feels like HN is biased against, and even is suppressing, their position. (In one memorable case, the topic we were accused of suppressing was actually the single-most-discussed topic on HN by a long shot: >>23624962 . That's how intensely these passions work: even the biggest story gets perceived as censored.)

Let's look at the specific topic you mentioned. HN had plenty of discussions about the lab leak theory, starting in late 2020 and all through 2021. I've listed some below; there were others (and of course many more in 2022 and 2023). Some fell off the front page rather quickly but the biggest ones spent 15, 16, 18 hours on the front page.

Everyone's memory about the pandemic has been retroactively revised by now, but as I recall it, the rehabilitation of the lab leak theory in (semi-)mainstream discourse began when Nicholas Wade published his article in the Bulletin. HN discussed that one thoroughly (>>27071432 ) and there had been several major frontpage threads even before that.

An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19 - >>28582290 - Sept 2021 (307 comments)

Scientists who signed Lancet letter about origins of Covid-19, have 2nd thoughts - >>27631560 - June 2021 (36 comments)

The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins - >>27388587 - June 2021 (1062 comments)

Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before Covid-19 outbreak disclosed - >>27259953 - May 2021 (346 comments)

The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box? - >>27071432 - May 2021 (537 comments)

Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out - >>26750452 - April 2021 (618 comments)

The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus - >>26609494 - March 2021 (209 comments)

Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed - >>26540458 - March 2021 (985 comments)

US raises ‘deep concerns’ over WHO report on Covid’s Wuhan origins - >>26125145 - Feb 2021 (632 comments)

Ensuring a transparent, thorough investigation of Covid-19’s origin - >>25799858 - Jan 2021 (74 comments)

Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it - >>25585833 - Dec 2020 (351 comments)

(There of course were many threads arguing the opposite as well - I'm just listing these because they're the relevant ones for answering the GP. If this post makes you feel like HN was too supportive of and/or too suppressive of the opposite side, please re-read the first paragraph - it seems to work the same way in all cases.)