[willmarch]

You’re misrepresenting what the content policy says (making it appear to favor your position more strongly than it does), as I believe a political article that engages intellectual curiosity should not be flagged according to the spirit of HN (which is subjective, of course, and leaves a lot of room for biased implementations even when someone believes they are not being biased).

It’s not an easy problem to solve and is hard to balance fairly, so I think your painting of the content policy as being crystal clear is a misrepresentation that isn’t properly taking into account the subjectivity of what is viewed as political and what counts as intellectually stimulating to different HN users (as it seems if something is “interesting” then that tends to override the “political” in many instances on the home page, and is entirely subjective).

[SauntSolaire]

The application can be messy, but the policy itself is clear [1]. My position is that you can feel free to argue specific cases, but if someone's against the concept of moderating political stories, then that's directly at odds with the stated policy of this site and they would be better off posting elsewhere.

[1] > "I know there are many users (actually a small-but-vocal minority of users) who complain that flags are being abused to suppress political stories. What these complainants never seem to take into account is that we want most political stories to be flagged on HN, for a critical reason: if they weren't, then HN would turn into a current-affairs site, and that would not be HN at all." (-dang)