>> It’s plainly against the rules of the site to post political stories
You seem to be new here, but this is easily misinterpreted by regulars as well: what you are referring to are not rules, they are guidelines. It says so "plainly": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is an important distinction especially for the bit you quoted, because what is old and uninteresting to some is new and interesting to others. This subjectivity is why it is not necessarily in the community's best interest to flag politics stories; when you do it, you're acting based on your own preferences, and you're robbing others of an opportunity to learn something new.
That's an emotionally manipulative way of dismissing their points that doesn't contribute to your argument, or to the site in general.
> what you are referring to are not rules, they are guidelines
That's semantics. When the "guidelines" are regularly adjusted, and when users are chastised or banned by the mods for not following them (even if not to the letter, but to the spirit of the law), then they are effectively rules.
> because what is old and uninteresting to some is new and interesting to others.
> you're robbing others of an opportunity to learn something new
The scope of HN is not "everything that is new and interesting", nor is the point to "give others an opportunity to learn something new". The guidelines, and moderators, are pretty clear that there are new and interesting stories that are off-topic because they veer into mainstream political news territory that invariably leads into flamewars that degrade the quality of the site.
There is a very good reason that politics are strongly discouraged/forbidden in the guidelines, and that users (including me) actively flag those posts: because that kind of discussion actively erodes and polarizes the community.
> when you do it, you're acting based on your own preferences
No, we're acting based on a basic understanding of human nature and experience with what happens when political stories make it through.
The fact that you weren't able to answer Esophagus4's points and data in the other comment shows that your position isn't defensible.
I'm late to this but I figure it's worth replying to if only to not leave the record uncorrected.
> So yes, the scope of HN is quite literally anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, which for a lot of people involves political topics. Therefore, one is indeed doing those users a great disservice by flagging such stories.
There's a big difference between discussing a topic in the spirit of intellectual curiosity vs ideological battle. One can try to characterise the latter as the former as a way to justify anything as being within HN's scope, but it's quite easy for objective observers to see the difference in the way someone conducts themselves. Stories are off-topic on HN if most of the interest in those topics is from people who want to engage in ideological battle about that topic.
Also, re. this:
> I have no idea why I'm getting into this argument with a throwaway who might very well be a sockpuppet, but what the hell, let's do it
Please don't be snarky in response to another user who had posted a perfectly legitimate comment. Their account has been active for over four years and has > 3500 karma, so they're clearly an established and valued contributor to HN.
I’ll ignore the slight about “you must be new here,” but I don’t flag all political stories, just the ones that are high-noise, low-signal.
But rather than arguing in the abstract, let’s look at the data. Here’s what I’ve flagged recently:
> Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agreeing new rules
> State Department Revokes Visas over Charlie Kirk Comments
> Rand Paul: FCC chair had "no business" intervening in ABC/Kimmel controversy
> Yes, Jimmy Kimmel's suspension was government censorship
> Tylenol-maker shares hit after report RFK Jr will suggest autism link
Each of those you can find on any other outrage-based pseudo-news site across the internet: Twitter will be in echo chamber flame wars over them, CNN will be in breaking news mode, NYT, WSJ, and the Washington Post will cover them, Reddit and Facebook and Instagram will push them…
Are those the stories you’re really fighting to keep on here? Do you have objections to me flagging any of those? Who am I depriving of an opportunity to learn about those rare, insightful pieces?
(And by the way, 3/5 of those were flagged by the community as well. So it seems like the community agrees with me more than it disagrees.)
When someone responds to a post with data and arguments with a condescending remark and no refutations, it's an admission that they lost the argument. Thank you for taking the time to find the data!
You seem to be new here, but this is easily misinterpreted by regulars as well: what you are referring to are not rules, they are guidelines. It says so "plainly": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is an important distinction especially for the bit you quoted, because what is old and uninteresting to some is new and interesting to others. This subjectivity is why it is not necessarily in the community's best interest to flag politics stories; when you do it, you're acting based on your own preferences, and you're robbing others of an opportunity to learn something new.