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
Stories about COVID controversies are almost certainly getting flagged off the front page by users, not touched by mods. People look at the titles of these stories and think that's all flaggers are going by, but lots of people flag stories based on their experience of what the threads are like, and the threads on COVID controversies are fucking dreadful. I didn't flag (or see) that story, but I would have.

>>tptace+ug
But why must they be dreadful? Genuine question, I am not being obtuse. We should be able as a community to discuss conterversial subjects somehow.

I also think this sort of thing invites flag brigades. Or better yet, a small batch of bad actor can easily start brigading and forcefully associate such flamewar expectations with any subject they don't like to drive it off HN.

Maybe worth reconsidering how you flag? You might be getting played. Or not, I really don't know. No obvious answers.

>>vertic+6j
COVID stories are dreadful because there is a very low average level of applicable domain knowledge for COVID discussions.

In plain English, not enough people actually know what they are talking about to create an informative and educational discussion. So they all just end up as a pointless exercise in all the worst aspects of forum flame wars.

HN is at its best when people with lots of relevant experience and knowledge come into the discussion. Then the rest of us can learn new facts, tools, perspectives, etc.

There’s a long list of topics where that is just not available in the existing audience. So there are a lot of topics that, while interesting, are just not a good investment of everyone’s time here.