Apple is forcing women to move to a state that treats them like birthing vessels and second-class citizens. Calling it out is our duty. Keeping silent on it is agreeing with the State of Texas that a non-viable fetus is more important than the life of a mother of two.
"Generic" in this context has to do with replacing a specific topic with a larger, more general one that it perhaps has some connection to. The problem from an HN point of view is that it makes discussion less interesting and more flame-prone. The generic topics drown out the smaller ones the way a black hole will suck in everything that comes too close (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
That doesn't mean the larger topic isn't important. Most probably it is very important, far more than the more specific topic is. That's not what HN is optimizing for, though (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Trying to stay focused on the specific rather than the generic, and especially the inflammatory generic, is a big part of keeping HN intact for its particular purpose. Otherwise it would quickly become purely a current affairs site, which it's not.
Btw there could be a way of making that point without starting a flamewar, but when a comment begins with political rhetoric and ends with a Molotov cocktail, it's obviously pointing to the latter. It's not as if this is a borderline call!
The GP was starting a political flamewar of the most predictable type—two types at the same time, in fact: ideological and regional. That's not a borderline call, especially given the flamewar style it was written in.
None of that means the issue isn't important; quite the contrary. But HN isn't primarily a site for hammering out the most important issues in the world—if it were, then it would be consumed by political battle, and that's the opposite of the intellectual curiosity which the site actually is for.
We have to be proactive about moderating in this way, because the default tendencies on the internet are all flameward. That means the default end state of this site is scorched earth, unless we put in a lot of energy to avoid that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Btw, phrases like "calling out" are usually an indication that a comment is headed further into the flames. We're mostly trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture here. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...
Edit: Obviously, taxes apply everywhere on earth and therefore are also a generic topic, so the even-handed approach of shutting down tax chat and healthcare chat is appreciated.
This is the epitome of a relevant tech discussion. Choosing to moderate it away because it is too controversial is coming out on the side of the status quo that the state of Texas is enforcing on women's autonomy.
Here's another way of looking at it, in case helpful: we don't want anything predictable on HN. The rhetoric that people resort to when an issue like this comes up is fierce, repetitive, and predictable. That makes sense—if you're fighting for a cause you feel passionately about, repeating the same points as intensely as possible is what you do. But all of that is off topic on this site. There are plenty of other places to post that way.
Edit: I know how strong the temptation is to read something like this and think that the mods are taking the wrong position* on (in this case) abortion rights, and then get super mad about it. But I'm not saying anything about abortion rights (or California vs. Texas) in the slightest. I'm just trying to do the pedestrian moderation job I always do.
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Nearly every time we moderate any X at all, someone jumps to the conclusion "mod secretly agrees with the enemies of X or is secretly under their power". But X varies across the set of all topics, so if this logic is correct, we'd have to secretly be favoring everybody's enemy.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I can see that inflammatory comments are not equally disapproved >>39032567
Now instead of heated conversation there is no conversation and I'm not sure that it is a better outcome.
Were discussion about Foxxcon suicides equally moderated?
That's just a case of us not having seen it. I've responded now. It's not possible for us to read everything that gets posted to HN—there's far too much. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.
> Were discussion about Foxxcon suicides equally moderated?
I can't fathom what that has to do with this, but the answer is of course. The principles are the same.
You can always find examples of comments that escape moderation on any side of any sufficiently-discussed topic. People are far too eager to make inferences about moderation bias from what is in fact just randomness.
That said: HN's policy of strongly deprecating discussions of political hot potatoes does mean that HN has a de facto status quo bias, which is problematic in general and in this case specifically, as the issue raised in the flagged comment upstream is assuredly material for some Apple employees objecting to Apple's ultimatum.
Political oppression is unfortunately highly predictable. This doesn't make it unworthy of discussion.
Mods almost never flag submissions but we do sometimes flag comments.
Both of these points are in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
There's been a tremendous shift in U.S. abortion, reproductive, and effectively general healthcare since the Dobbs decision in 2022, and Texas specifically has enacted some of the strictest and most vindictive state laws and policies, all of which would and should weigh heavily on the minds of anyone affected by Apple's decision here. Raising that point is absolutely on-topic in this discussion.
I'll allow that the "Thanks, Apple" wasn't strictly necessary, but even that seems within bounds given the circumstances and story.
If you'd like some guidelines here, I'd suggest that political considerations which impact on a story, particularly where those considerations have recently changed or are in flux (both of which apply here) should be permitted.
Totalitarian, repressive, and authoritarian governments and governance specifically operate on the very sort of generic, hot-button, emotionally-loaded issues and matters which HN typically eschews. Where those topics are not materially related to the story at hand I think that they can be reasonably admonished, particularly if the context and tone are inflammatory. In this case the consideration and its significance are material and relevant, even if Chron's own story omitted the consideration (a conspicuous omission itself).
HN's policy puts an extreme onus on those who call out repression, and is effectively a form of tone-policing. I've called this out in the past, and pointed out where you've acknowledged a comenter's stress in response, as here: <>>37372792 >
As contrasted: <>>37270026 >, which bears repeating.
Your own insensitivity on this particular matter is truly disappointing.
This makes sense. Despite the post being critically salient and undeniably on topic, it is a violation of the rules. Or not, just a moderation call or both or neither. Anyway despite the obvious relevance here the rules/your discretion (whichever one it is) have thankfully saved us from any discussion of the uncontested fact that this is a material issue and not an abstract discussion of moral issues.
I am sorry that I gave you the impression that this was some weird capitulation, that’s not the case. It’s a wholly normal and humdrum capitulation that is not in any way odd. Treating issues like this as abstract or unworthy of discussion is the norm in many industries, tech included!
The fact that the attorney general of the state can and will intervene between doctors and patients in order to further an ideological agenda is wholly abstract to a group that will insist that “this doesn’t apply to me personally and therefore is unworthy of discussion”. By default (either rules or moderation call, whichever) they have been deemed correct and endorsed here by explicitly disallowing any discussion to the contrary.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/sick-sick-enough-...