Avoiding repetition is a core principle here. Of course it applies to every topic.
I've written extensively in the last few days explaining the moderation approach to cases like this. Let me dig up some links for you...
Edit: here's one post that covers the basics: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42911011. If you (or anyone) want further explanation, here are links that cover some of the principles we're applying here:
All we're doing is applying those principles the way we usually do. That doesn't mean we make every individual call correctly—we definitely don't. (I wrote about that recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306.) But the principles are stable, and as far as I know they're the right ones for HN.
If people want us to change how we moderate, it's not enough to demand that we unflag more stories about a specific $Topic that some users feel strongly about. That argument doesn't work because there is always such a $Topic going on.
Rather, you'd need to argue either that we're not following our principles, or that they're the wrong principles (and in that case propose better ones). I'd personally be very interested in such arguments; like anyone who has worked hard on a problem for years, I'd be both surprised and gratified to learn about a better solution. We just need to be talking about the same problem. In HN's case, the problem is how to optimize an open web forum for intellectual curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
>> it's not enough to demand that we unflag more stories about a specific $Topic that some users feel strongly about. That argument doesn't work because there is always such a $Topic going on.
Your line of reasoning doesn't make any sense.
Flagging the story hides valuable information, and if the topic is always going on then there is clearly interest in the community.
If my point didn't make sense, it may be because I compressed it too much. Here's some background information followed by a decompressed version of that specific point.
The optimal HN front page is not one consisting of stories that the strongest-feeling subsets of users feel strongest about. That would optimize for indignation and sensationalism—definitely incompatible with HN's mandate.
The tug-of-war between upvotes and flags is core to HN's functioning. Indignant and/or sensational stories are often propelled onto the frontpage by 'hot' upvotes and then demoted by 'cold' flags. For the most part, that's the system working as intended. Not having flags at all, which is (I think?) what you're arguing for, would definitely not be in the interests of the site.
There's unfortunately* still a need for moderation, though, because some stories stay on the front page even though they're not so good (I mean 'good' in the specific sense of 'in keeping with the site mandate), and some stories get flagged off the front page even though they are legit submissions that could produce good-for-HN threads.
Now here's a decompressed version of the point you quoted:
If it were a rare thing for a topic to get flagged even though some users care strongly about it, we could just turn off the flags whenever that happened. However, there are always topics going on that some users care strongly about, which other users want to flag. To unflag all of them would (practically) amount to not having flags at all, and that's not an option. Therefore, there needs to be some way of deciding which ones to unflag vs. to leave flagged; and the argument for this cannot just be "please turn off the flags because I really care about this story"—that would be treating one subset of users more favorably than others. Similarly, it can't be "let's turn off the flags because we (the mods) personally care about the story". There needs to be an argument from principle about why a given story is a good candidate for turning off flags (or not turning off flags). If people want to argue that about a particular story, then, they need to either show how (1) this is desirable given HN's principles as I've explained them; or (2) there could be different principles that are better at realizing the site mandate. Does that make more sense now?
* unfortunately, because it would be so much less work if there weren't!
While I appreciate all the submissions about running Doom on HDMI dongles, it doesn't affect the health of millions of people. The submissions that are flagged inhibit intelligent discussion about items that affect every person on this forum.
You're right. But this is the perennial question of what sort of site HN is supposed to be. If the criterion for frontpage threads were importance, then HN would be a current affairs site—a completely different place. That's not the mandate we have (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Optimizing for curiosity [1] means including whimsical things like "Doom on a dongle", "how much do all of the ants in the world weigh", and so on, and less space for a lot of more important things. This follows from the mandate of the site.
Sometimes people feel like we should exclude political stories altogether, but that's not right—what we've learned about optimizing-for-curiosity is that some political discussion needs to be included—just not too much [2].
How much is too much? Well, that's the thing that nobody agrees on. For the people who feel most strongly about a story, it's never too much. That's how "literally the most-discussed topic on the site" turns into the perception "all discussion on this topic is being suppressed" [3].
There are endless things that affect every person on this forum that are not a particularly great fit for the forum so that in itself isn't much of a practical criterion.
“We’ve already had four Rust topics this month, better flag any new ones!”
This article is not the same news as the others you’ve listed. It’s disingenuous to claim they’re all the same.