You can go literally any place online to preach this, why is HN trying to carve out something that isn't the same slop you see everywhere else so objectionable? It's the internet, you aren't the only one with a cause, and once that ball gets rolling nothing is ultimately left in its path except purity tests and fights without any intellectual dimension to them.
Almost as though there’s a prevailing culture opposed to it and backed up by stringent moderation. Think of it as an immune system, you let it go and then body is overwhelmed.
ah, we doing the moderation conspiracy theory too?
I have yet to see any credible evidence or analysis for this in more than 15 years on HN, just anecdotes and occasional instances where moderation shows its a hard and imperfect job
some people dislike this, others hold the opposite opinion
From the guidelines
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
An interesting example is the results of the US presidential election often sitting at the #1 spot for a while
I'd counter that it led to a meta discussion about HN, which is good from time to time, to see how each other think about the content policies here, over assuming everyone thinks the same about it only being tech and tangential
if you find content inappropriate for HN, flag it, hide it, and move on
