Even if someone does get flagged/dead consistently, if they happen to hit content that is interesting to HN, that is a good thing. Maybe they'll figure out what the community actually wants to see and improve their contributions.
And if the studies linked aren't worthwhile, I'm sure the community will flag it accordingly.
Either way, I'm going to judge each post on its own merits.
The problem isn't that the content is interesting, the problem is that the content is false. Nothing in TFA links to anything supporting the "claims."
That is the reason for flagging, not just this post, but several others by the same submitter on the same Medium site.
> And if the studies linked aren't worthwhile, I'm sure the community will flag it accordingly.
Again, the issue has nothing to do with the studies. The issue is that TFA falsely portrays the studies in the summaries--to such an extent that the summaries are either intended to be in reference to another study, or they are entirely fabricated.
Great, then flag it. Once I saw the problems with it, I did.
The point is that your critiques from the comment above could have been the points in your top comment. Attacking a post because of the author, even one who is habitually flagged, just doesn't seem to be in the right spirit. If it deserves flagging, do so. If not, don't.
