@Dang - was this flagged by users? Seems crazy that it had 30 points in 20 minutes and now it's gone.
Zuckerberg's statement on this seemed really well written. The "Black Lives Matter" vs. "All Lives Matter" has been discussed endlessly, but he had another great point about crossing out the Black Lives Matter being essentially the same as silencing free speech.
I vouched for it since despite what people may think about BLM, Zuckerberg's response is important and relevant.
Though if I'm being more charitable, most likely some people see this as a political article which shouldnt be on HN (whether you feel that way is probably correlated to your opinion of Black Lives Matter).
If somebody only objects to political articles when it's politics they don't like, I'd be curious as to how they resolve claiming to be against politics while energetically politicizing something.
The topic of the article is fine for HN, in my opinion, despite being political, but that doesn't mean we should settle for a crappy article. Hence, the temptation to flag this one and let a better submission get the focus.
"Notorious" means famous for something seen in a negative light.
It doesn't actually mean that you have the trait in a unusual degree, only that you are particularly well-known and negatively reacted to for the trait.
It may be inaccurate to describe Facebook as "notoriously white", but the fact that they are somewhat less white, proportionally, than the US population doesn't actually demonstrate that. (It might be a basis for arguing that, if they are notoriously white, the notoriety is not deserved, but that's a different issue.)
Flagkilling this post strikes me as an interesting statement about how divisive race can be - even for this demographic (i.e. mostly well-educated tech people)
As a side note, it would be very interesting to see some information and statistics about the flagging on HN.
https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/the-value-of-downvoti...
I'm not just a moralist(though I think it's obvious there are moral points here) I'm building an HN clone.
But anything that makes it obvious that a flamewar is going on would just exacerbate it. Seems to be the case with Reddit. For me, my own "flag" is if a post has as many comments as upvotes...in fact, I assumed that this was something that would auto-downmod a front page submission.
Instead we have to draw our own conclusions which incentivizes a cynical spiral that "the other guys are abusing it so I should too".
Is the point of the flagging feature to be a nuclear downvote when you disagree with something?
I'm not aware of any alternative to the current voting/flagging system that would balance the concerns more effectively. Certainly any solution will include cases that leave many users unsatisfied.
Gee, I wonder why this submission was flagged, with a lead sentence like this.