zlacker

>>Robin8+(OP)
> In fact, I don't see a single story that I personally feel should not have been removed.

I don't understand why this story was removed: "It turns out the six-feet social-distancing rule had no scientific basis", >>39200511

On a forum with an overwhelmingly science-minded audience, it bothers me that an important topic like that is deemed untouchable.

>>ggdG+ib
I think reading the top comment on that post provides plenty of explanation why users would flag that post. Perhaps you're trying not to understand.

>>wtalli+Cc
> I think reading the top comment on that post provides plenty of explanation why users would flag that post.

That top comment complains that the HN title is WSJ's informative subheading instead of its clickbaity headline.

>>ggdG+Ne
The top comment complains that the title submitted to HN is both not the original headline, and not an accurate characterization of the content of the article.

If there's no possible title to use for a submission that won't get it flagged, then clearly it's not a great article to be submitting.

And it's disingenuous for you to pretend that the issue is HN users being unwilling to reexamine the public health response to Covid-19, when the submission is clearly flouting HN's rules. (The paywall doesn't help its viability as an HN submission, either.)