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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
I believe that you have expressed this stance for at least several years now.
Perhaps these people's perceptions are well founded. It seems as if an orthodoxy is being enforced & people whose opinions that run counter to the orthodoxy, particularly when the orthodoxy is covertly political while masquerading as a truism.
You replied to an email from me stating a similar position...except you pointed out opinions of both the left & right of the political divide are moderated. I don't think that's that's the important imbalance though. It's the unorthodox who are more heavily moderated. There's a double standard, where the orthodox frame is given far more leeway, even to the point of breaking guidelines, without moderation.
I don't see much public self reflection on the moderation...mostly denial & self justification whenever someone brings it up. Seems like the same gas lighting that the corporate media, "thought leaders", the management class, the expert class, & elites push onto their subjects.
Perhaps some of the "strong passions" are in part inflamed by the negative reinforcement of the moderation activities...being punished for expressing observations & thoughts, taking a stand on covertly political topics, expressing the unorthodox. I have learned to not care about being downvoted or flagged or being threatened to be banned from this site or told to slow down as long as I am seeking truth & expressing in pursuit of truth. If my karma goes negative, so be it. I've learned to not be impressed by vanity metrics.
Right now it seems that nobody moderates the moderators...meaning there's no effective feedback about moderation activity. The moderator can simply use the same canned denial whenever any form of critique comes up. The downvoter or flagger can use the same knee jerk reaction to quash any self determined unapproved expression. It's too easy. It creates covert hostility on the site.
One thing that could help is transparency of voting & flagging. The people who do these activities also have bias & I don't think it's always done in good faith nor does it always support the stated guidelines of this site. Perhaps a form to explain why the downvote or flagging was done & how the guidelines or culture of the site was violated would reduce retaliatory downvoting/flagging.
If I make a comment I put in effort to think about & express my opinion in the public record. I'm motivated to put forth this effort when I think like I can contribute some to the discussion...which often occurs when the trend of the discussion is perceived to possibly be leading down a false or unoptimal path...an unorthodox view.
Downvoting/flagging should also require effort to weed out retaliation & have a cost if done in bad faith. If someone feels justified & can express why they are justified in downvoting/flagging, why not make it public record as well? The person whose expression was downvoted or flagged will have feedback to improve their expression if they violated a HN guideline. As it stands now, the author has to guess...with a possibility that the downvoting/flagging occurred in bad faith.
I appreciate whoever reads this long comment. I have learned much about human & cultural nature in participating with this site & I am grateful for this.
Much as it's discouraged, people frequently discuss moderation in hn comments, furthermore I know that lots of people (including ourselves) have engaged with dang privately about this. YMMV, of course, but I've found him nothing but humble and enthusiastic about improving the state of affairs around here. dang and I disagree on several value judgements, but overall I think it's miraculous we have such a good steward of the discussion here.