The other two were too sensational and, in the case of >>36627969 , already a heavily discussed theme, so I'd say they were flagged correctly.
I mean, there's a high-ranking thread about a huge oak table on the front page right now: >>36912861 . As there should be.
(You probably already know this but for anyone who doesn't: HN is explicitly not just a technical forum - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)
I don't understand what you're referring to. Can you explain further?
Edit: oh, I see - you're talking about >>35719273 . Yes, sometimes when startups ask me for help, I make suggestions about how they can change their articles to better appeal to HN readers, or to avoid pitfalls. For example, mentioning one's startup only at the end of an otherwise interesting article (which I guess people do because marketers told them it was a "call to action", or something?) makes many HN readers feel like the whole article was a bait-and-switch, and then they rush into comments to complain that the article is "just an ad" or whatnot. That's what happened in that thread - e.g. >>35718172 and >>35718321 . In such cases I advise authors to mention their startup right at the beginning - an easy fix. I don't think most people would call that censorship! - certainly the authors who take the advice do so freely and say they're grateful for it.
I can't help but wonder if there's something else to your complaint because it's hard for me to understand why that would be objectionable. If you want to explain more I'd be interested...
Btw re "the richest people in SV" - the startup in that case wasn't SV related as far as I know, and certainly not YC related; I believe it's a spinoff from Andy Pavlo's research group at CMU. I wasn't helping them for any reason other than to make the HN thread more interesting and because they emailed to ask.
Your comment history mostly shows comments on non-technical stories. Why is that?
Just be aware that if you do that, you're signing up to see the worst of what the internet has to offer HN—alongside a lot of other stuff that isn't as bad. We never delete things outright, unless the author asks us to, so that setting is basically x-ray glasses into everything.
Some people will use HN for job postings. I would certainly expect that anyone with two brain cells to rub together uses a throwaway account for anything but the most boring opinions about C++ proposals. All it takes is a single throwaway sentence 7 years ago that pisses off the Church, and you could end up not getting hired.
I imagine that HN world devolve into a shitshow without him, or someone doing similar work with a similarly deft touch. We owe him our thanks.
>>10877423 (Jan 2016 - maybe before we figured out how to treat the dreaded title fever, which drives men mad like mosquitoes in the old northwest)
>>7611005 (April 2014 - what a time warp - remember when anything anti-Elon would get flamed?)
>>8477279 (Oct 2014 - thank god I changed it back or lord knows how bad it couldve gotten)
>>14248635 (May 2017 - everyone wants more monthly threads until the front page fills up with them, guess how you'd like that now)
>>11608112 (May 2016 - fair play for airbnb? how dare i?)
>>10564079 (Nov 2015 - ugh. hn must have gotten better about religious flamewar because that one made me cringe)
>>17780480 (Aug 2018 - i probably wouldn't do that now - but please come back, pvg)
>>8759235 (Dec 2014 - i'm sorry don't hit me!)
>>13752227 (Feb 2017 - oho! we can detach things!)
>>8809021 (Dec 2014 - i have sweeter ways of making the exact same point now)