"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.
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...
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.