zlacker

The story you're talking about was on the front page mostly between about 1pm and 3pm U.K. time, then hovered around the bottom of the front page and dropped off as most of the U.S. came online. And you're talking about one article but asserting a trend or pattern.

Here are recent stories about U.S. politics with inflammatory titles that spent multiple hours (over 22, in one case) on the front page.

The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis - >>46633378 - Jan 2026 (858 comments - 2 hours)

Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves - >>46355548 - Dec 2025 (471 comments - 22 hours)

A Developer Accidentally Found CSAM in AI Data. Google Banned Him for It - >>46233067 - Dec 2025 (93 comments - 2 hours)

You can't refuse to be scanned by ICE's facial recognition app, DHS document say - >>45780228 - Nov 2025 (509 comments - 7 hours)

Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' - >>45505103 - Oct 2025 (163 comments - 3 hours)

We could debate what counts as "recent" or "inflammatory," but I don't think that would be productive.

>>tomhow+(OP)
You're really comparing these to the following headline?

> The UK is shaping a future of precrime and dissent management

All of your examples focus on specific events and factual claims, not sweeping doom and gloom claims about the state of the US. I'll leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.

By the way, we're both making claims here based on what we've seen of HN, not some kind of objective scientific analysis. I asserted a trend and gave an example of the trend that I was talking about. It's silly to complain about that when you are doing the exact same thing.

>>foldr+P
You've cited one example and claimed it to be evidence of a trend. But you haven't shown evidence of a trend. One-offs happen all the time on HN for all kinds of reasons – randomness as much as anything else. I've provided five examples I could find quickly. I'm not getting further into a debate about the definition of “inflammatory”. When discussions turn into debates about definitions of inherently subjective terms it's definitely time to stop.

>>tomhow+E2
The point is that we are both basing our point of view on our accumulated experience of reading HN and then looking for examples to illustrate that point of view. It's a misreading of the discourse to complain that these examples aren't strong 'evidence' for the points of view in question. Of course they are not; they are merely illustrative examples. And realistically, you don't even really want me to send you a 100 page evidence dossier, do you?

Your specific examples are not very convincing, but as I said, anyone reading can compare the headlines and judge for themselves on that point.