I also think it's thoroughly misplaced.
I'm not an Israeli, but I would have to assume that maybe the poster thought Israeli hackers might find this intellectually curious. Also, there are and were plenty of topics on health care legislation in the US, so this doesn't appear to be outside the scope of HN rules, but I could be wrong.
Flagging, in my opinion, is what killed the HN post - not a policy or moderator decision. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
That includes more than hacking and startups. If
you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might
be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual
curiosity.
On the margins there will always be articles that don't get killed which perhaps should, and articles which should probably survive, but don't. There will be random fluctuations akin to turbulence around the edges.
The Economist article about prisoners ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1541942 ) might be regarded as something biased in interest towards hackers because people can argue about how to change the laws, or the meting out of punishments - hacking justice. The NY Times article about Jewish conversion is perhaps less biased to hackers because there's nothing for hackers specifically to argue. It's of broad interest to intelligent and politically aware people, and not specifically biased towards hackers.
Personally I'd wish for more clarity on exactly what happens, because then there'd be fewer people speculating and asking the same questions over and over. Also personally, I'd wish for more deeply technical submissions.
But here is a certainty: navel gazing, questions about policy, complaints about submissions being killed, and general moaning about karma, flags and moderators are getting killed faster than I've seen since I arrived. Not everyone shares your exact interests, and if your submission gets killed, move on.
Is that Economist post about any of the things you listed ?
If you think that the Economist post was relevant,it is easy to argue that the New York Times post which opened with a paragraph that mentioned the "byzantine complexity of Israeli politics" and "A growing crisis between American Jews and the Israeli government over a proposed law " is also relevant.
PS: Using the "not about startups, not about .." argument for the NYT post about Israel , but not for the hugely popular Economist post about America illustrates your own bias, but it is interesting to see that a large number of people share that bias
P.S. The post I mentioned (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1540904) is unfortunately killed, too. You have to turn showdead on to see it.
It would be especially interesting given that I'm not American (North or South) and I don't live in the Americas.
FWIW I am very interested in the issues raised in the NYT and I have been following the process elsewhere. I just don't think it's of interest to hackers as opposed to anyone else. I do believe the discussion of laws and prisoners has a hacker flavor, because there is a chance of hacking justice. There is no chance (that I can see) of hacking the politics of the Middle East.
And further, FWIW, I didn't flag your submission, I'm not a moderator, and I have no special standing on this forum. I just used common sense and observation to answer your question. I find it disappointing that you accuse me of bias in this way.
I think it is absurd for you to say that the Economist article was "biased in interest towards hackers because people can argue about how to change the laws, or the meting out of punishments - hacking justice" and then turn around and say that the NYT article about Israeli law is of "not specifically biased towards hackers"
As for your claim that there is no chance of "hacking the politics of the Middle East", the NY article was focused on one specific law and it appears that "hacking" (to use the term you'd like for the Economist article) has already been effective on that specific law.
To me, you're applying different standards to the two articles about the two laws and that indicates a bias for one topic over the other. That is fine. It appears that you reject the notion of having any bias and that is also fine by me.
As for where you live or what passport you have, I really don't care about that either. So quit your defensive posturing and don't make an issue over your nationality.
> Using the "not about startups, not about .." argument
> for the NYT post about Israel, but not for the hugely
> popular Economist post about America illustrates your
> own bias
If this was not your intention then I'm pleased, although that does confuse me as to what bias you thought you saw.
As to the suitability of either article for HN - both should be of interest to any intelligent person who cares about the real world, and both are marginal as to being of relevance to "Hacker News." I personally have more chance of thinking about and understanding the justice system than I have of understanding the specifics of a particular religion, even though I am interested in and following that issue as best I can. My reading of each article leaves me thinking that the question of the law and prisoners is more open to hacking than the interaction between a specific religion and the politics of the state that is so tightly tied to them.
You may think that's absurd, and I respect that opinion while, obviously, disagreeing with it.
And I will say no more on the subject.