Is he on a plane, isn't he, will Country X extradite him, won't they, does his old girlfriend still pole dance, doesn't she, what is Wikileaks' stance on him, is he allowed to trend on Twitter, etc.
The great majority of these stories seem mainly fodder for news companies to gain revenue while people voraciously seek more information about a quickly diminishing story. The documents were released, the hearings have been held, there are some lawsuits pending.
But we all know essentially how this will end: Prism isn't going away and Edward Snowden's fate is grim. And while we can discuss myriad elements 'til we're blue in the face, fifteen front-page stories a day aren't going to help us understand the issues any better, nor are they coverage of some important event.
Let's stop turning HN into a tabloid news service and get back to the deeply interesting stories.
"Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads.
A crap link is one that's only superficially interesting. Stories on HN don't have to be about hacking, because good hackers aren't only interested in hacking, but they do have to be deeply interesting.
What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, then perhaps it could be.
The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting. Gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter."