How is it possible that a small minority of people can flag and thereby censor an entire category of relevant content that does not violate any of HN's guidelines? This seems to be the case even when the content gains upvotes rapidly and the submitter has a 4-year-old account with plenty of karma.
Shouldn't it be a little more difficult to censor content contributed by long-standing users with no prior removed submissions?
This mechanism for moderation seems like a recipe for disaster, creating a system in which any small group of people who feel strongly about a topic can silence any and all debate and opposing opinions at the click of a button. It may seem like an effective form of moderation, but that's just because the vast amount of unjustly censored content is hidden from the public.
Would it be possible to let moderators review flagged content with a large number of upvotes? Ideally, users who frequently abuse their ability to delete content would also lose that privilege.
HN is a wonderful platform for sharing relevant and interesting content, but the potential for one-sided, unjustified censorship is unsettling. I am incredibly grateful that YC is providing this platform to us, and I hope that, by prioritizing intellectual discussion over censorship, these issues can be addressed to make Hacker News the neutral and unbiased platform we all want to see.
> In my profile, what does showdead do?
> If you turn it on, you'll see all the stories and comments that have been killed by software, moderators, or user flags.
This mechanism was designed precisely for the purpose of providing accountability about admins' actions to the user base at large.
Having been here for about four years, I can't agree to your statement about a "small minority" acting as "censors". Rather, the community as a whole seems to be very much in agreement as to what constitutes valid topics for discussion, and what types of behaviour are considered unwanted.