Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

> I guess you have to start at some point

I notice they started with their political opponents.

I think it would be helpful to forget about the "Republicans" and think about other people who might hold other opinions which may not be shared by the owners of one of the dominant platforms for announcing your views.

No one is saying that New York Times has to publish the story. However, if someone wants to publish a story and announce it to their followers on a platform, citizens need to think long and hard before agreeing to "whatever the shareholders want goes."

The fact that they do not have a product they sell to the recipients of information at a positive price makes it harder for competitive alternatives to gain any traction at all. So, the fact that once a platform like this achieves a certain reach it is unlikely to be effectively challenged means we need to think hard about how much power we want them to have in terms of shaping the conversation: Both conversation we like and conversation we do not like ... It is not sufficient to think in terms of your affinity to the dominant forces. You have to think about what kind of society you want to be in when you are in the minority.

> I didn't say it was criminally accessed, but that it was criminally released

In that case it wouldn't make it a hack, but just a leak.

> and that according to the law in that state became the legal property of the shop owner

That's something I'm still fuzzy on. I'm not sure if it's the law in the state, or just the store's contractual policy. Also, I don't know if the laptop becoming property of the shop extends to the information contained within it. And it also didn't specify if the data on the hard drive was password protected or encrypted in any way which meant retrieval would still require hacking into it.

> But once it got so high up that @Jack commented on it, and now over a week later the NY Post's account is still banned, it doesn't float.

I can't speak to that. Now Twitter has a PR issue, and I'm guessing whatever choices they've made or not are based on them trying to mitigate and limit the PR damages.

My guess is, the NY Post is now smearing twitter's own reputation, and possibly twitter doesn't like that, and are worried they'd use their account to further promote anti-twitter rethoric which might be why Twitter is against unblocking their account.

I'm a bit confused how they unblocked the tweet about the email story but kept the account blocked, that's a bit strange.

Another thing I wondered is how likely could Twitter be accountable for if Hunter were to sue them for defamation and libel? Normally it seem fair game to defame and cause libel to politicians, but would that extend to Hunter which isn't directly involved in politics? Or could that be a winning lawsuit from him if he wanted too?

Of course the rules prohibit flag brigading. If you're saying that political stories are getting flagkilled because politicized users are organizing to kill the ones their cause opposes, then either you have evidence I haven't seen (and I need to see it) or you are vastly overinterpreting the data. Certainly such behavior would be abusive, and we would either penalize such accounts or ban them outright. Just keep in mind that evidence means something objective, such as a post on some external site organizing people to flag something on HN. Posts getting flagged when you think they shouldnt've is not evidence of brigading. It's just evidence that other users disagree with you.

A separate meta section would be a disaster—it would create a dedicated place for the problem to metastasize, and the demands on moderation would go up not down. I once had a conversation with the founder of a forum much larger than HN, who told me that creating a meta section in the hope that it would help contain such complaints was the biggest mistake they ever made.

The meme that HN is declining is more or less as old as HN itself. Maybe HN is declining and we're doomed unless we make major changes (though the prescriptions for such changes are perennially contradictory). I think you're missing a more likely explanation though: internet users just like to complain a lot. Moreover there's a nostalgia bias that always makes it feel like the site was better when you first joined it. (I don't mean you personally, I mean any of us.) Like tree rings, each cohort dates the decline from approximately when they joined the site. It's always the later users, the hoi polloi, who are the invasive species ruining everything—in conjunction with the feckless and ignorant mods.

How about we make this into a positive this way: if there's a specific article that you feel was intellectually interesting, and capable of supporting a substantive discussion on HN, and which was flagkilled unfairly, let us know at hn@ycombinator.com. So far you've mentioned two. In one case we'd already turned off the flags before we saw your complaint (and I think that was because someone emailed us—which is what the site guidelines ask you to instead of making meta posts). In the other case we simply didn't agree that it was an intellectually interesting article that was capable of supporting a substantive discussion on HN.

Moderators have to make these calls in the end because if we don't, the site will be consumed by flamewars. That's a different issue from getting any particular call wrong. If we get one wrong, I'm happy to be persuaded, to admit it, and to correct the error in that case. But I don't agree that the system is malfunctioning and needs an overhaul. I think it's basically functioning the way an immune system has to, which includes being overzealous at times.

I spend a ton of time on the meta stuff and I spend a ton of time on all the other stuffs too. As you'll gather from my several lengthy replies to you, I don't have any problem engaging with specific users' concerns about the site. But I prefer to do it either in situ, or by email. Making meta submissions to complain about downvoting or flagging doesn't have good effects. It just stirs up mobs, in which everyone with a complaint shows up to make it, the discussions turn into the same thing they always do, and it's simply impossible to respond. Don't forget that there's currently only one mod (me) who's in a position to respond publicly.

I appreciate the replies. I've noticed at least a couple handful over the last year, some more unfortunate than others, but I'm not keeping close score so I don't have them on hand. I don't actually even follow flaggings really, I assume there are many I miss.

Is there a place to see flagged-but-highly-upvoted articles? That would be another helpful area to let users check and report false negatives.

When I notice more, I'll just shoot you an email.

I am agreeing on the complaint meme, by the way. As I see it, the meme used to be that it's a bunch of assholes and closed-minded-pedants/contrarianistas (and to be honest, it kind of was for a while, and I think mods have fixed it a bit), and now the meme is that it's getting a bit groupthinky and quick on the flag button (and I suspect that meme is true as well, and can be fixed).