Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit of a strange example to make this claim about, since the argument that that post broke HN's rules is pretty easy. The balance between upvotes and flags (and moderation) on HN is pretty stable; it's been this way for years. It doesn't always produce what I think is the most interesting and important result, either. Probably true for most readers if not everyone.
What rule? That it's political? But it's not really. It's not about any specific candidate or policy, but whether Google censors search results. "Hillary Clinton is a jerk" would be a political article. "Google removes 'Hillary Clinton is a jerk' from search results" is not. >The balance between upvotes and flags (and moderation) on HN is pretty stable By what metric do you measure stability?
I'm sure if someone did a more comprehensive article on what autocomplete filters, along with how this might introduce bias even if fairly solid, HN wouldn't flag it. It could be political if it's comprehensive and clear. (Perhaps research why "Mein Kampf" shows up when searching images of Trump's book.) Even an expose on how SV money affects government should be fine. (I think it was on HN I heard about Google coordinating with the US to destabilize some place, maybe Libya?)
Dang is being excellent here, allowing the community to decide.
Honestly the only thing is the opaqueness of the flagging process. I was just caught by surprise after reloading a tab. On its merits it's just a weak video.
