The "bar for flagging" is 500 karma. Anyone with the "flag" button can click it, and it's up to the moderators to decide how to interpret that (for example, they might ignore flags from users with a history of frivolous flagging, or hide the story if a sufficient number of users flag it).
There is no "linked article." It's a biased blog post by an accuser who is making public accusations against a company, without offering documentary evidence or describing the other side of the story.
I wouldn't flag an article titled "Rune Labs found guilty of employment discrimination by the California Labor Board." But I don't feel it's appropriate, nor is it intellectually interesting, to discuss the smell of someone's dirty laundry when we have no unbiased information as to how it got so dirty. That's why I flagged it, and I'm not going to apologize for that.
For all we know the post is inaccurate or libelous. To me, it reads like an attempt to incite a mob against the plausibly innocent leadership of a company. We simply do not have the information to decide one way or the other, because the author offered no documentary evidence nor did they offer the company an opportunity to defend itself.
While I don't support discriminating against anyone, I also don't support publicly attacking people who are just trying to do their job and build a successful company. The leadership at Rune Labs - which is a company I've never heard of btw - is comprised of people, too. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefit of the doubt as the accuser?
Go to court, win the case, then come back with an article about the disgusting bigots at Rune Labs. Until then I'm going to flag the post out of respect for the accused, and in the interest of promoting fairness for all involved parties. Above all, I'm going to flag the post because it's my right to do that, and it's a way of casting a vote against HN turning into a forum for rage politics and mob justice. We have Twitter for that.