If you want anomalous behavior: we not only put your post in the second-chance pool (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308), we unbanned wikidot.com and unkilled your submission so that it could go through in the first place.
Thanks for putting it in the second-chance pool.
The issue is anything that seems to disagree with Hacker News' mainstream[0] beliefs[1] gets flagged. Or even things the flagger doesn't understand: see this post being killed in the first place.
> The issue is anything that seems to disagree with Hacker News' mainstream[0] beliefs gets flagged.
You don't have to resort to "beliefs" to explain those cases. You may be falling prey to the bias where the bad (what you don't like) stands out more than the good (what you like), leading to false feelings of generality.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
The most well-known VPS provider (DO) is not profitable and a competitor (Linode) with the same price and a very similar product is profitable.
That in itself is interesting to me, particularly how DO managed to pull off that marketing.
> The second was flamebait on the biggest flamewar topic in months.
Sorry, I didn't see that it was already duplicated. If it was, I would have avoided submitting.
Almost all the threads you linked to were misinformation or anti-RMS posts with no substance.
Stallmansupport.org is a website made by a group of women, with articles only from women, debunking the sexism claims. It is rich in primary sources.
Yet it gets flagged.
Non-substantiative news like "Red Hat supports the removal of RMS" doesn't get flagged, but an in-depth website by a group of women does.
"Red Hat Pulls Free Software Foundation Funding over Richard Stallman's Return" is a dupe. Also, less than 3% of FSF funding is corporate, so it's not really relevant.
There were far more "calls for RMS to be removed" that weren't flagged than substantiative in-depth articles that looked at the issue.
I suggest a simple remedy: Don't count flags from people who didn't click to open the article. To implement this, require a min delay between the time the link list is loaded, and the time they flagged.
I addressed all of this in depth at the time (ironically, in a submission of the same URL that you posted, which wasn't killed):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26714003
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713701
That took hours, and I don't have hours to write anything new. If, after reading those comments, you still think there's something I haven't addressed, please double-check to make double-sure that I didn't address it. If it passes that test, ask me then and I'll try to answer. In the meantime, though, please don't post new variations in this endless sequence.
Someone was falsely accused of being misogynist ("Stallman never made me feel uncomfortable." - Molly De Blanc, leader of the anti-RMS letter.), transphobic ("My pronouns were always respected by Stallman and the rest of the GNU Project the day my transition was announced, and the same for other trans developers."), and more. I am outraged that HN failed to prevent– or even show balance– in the spread of this misinformation.
> I assure you that people on the opposite side of this story say exactly the same things, just with one bit flipped.
They are practicing ritual defamation, which mandates any speech presenting evidence is taboo: https://stallmansupport.org/the-practice-of-ritual-defamatio...
> If, after reading those comments, you still think there's something I haven't addressed, please double-check to make double-sure that I didn't address it. If it passes that test, ask me then and I'll try to answer.
Fine.
Your feeling that it was unbalanced is another example of the bias I'm talking about. Both sides over-weight the datapoints they dislike and under-weight (or simply don't notice) the ones they approve of, so both sides end up with a feeling of unjust imbalance. This is what I mean by false feelings of generality.
16 negative
8 positive
In the examples of popular threads you cited, a two-thirds supermajority were anit-Stallman.
I did a cursory search for "RMS" and "Stallman" in the past month, since your link was posted. I found 3 pro-Stallman articles (and no anti-Stallman ones):
https://meribold.org/2021/04/07/critique-of-rms-open-letter/ https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-... https://stallman.org/articles/dr-stallman.html
That brings our total to 16 negative and 11 positive, or 1.5 anti-Stallman articles per pro-Stallman articles. (60% anti-Stallman.)
Weighted by the number of comments, there are 378 more comments on the links you provided.