The problem is that this is such a partisan issue than partisanship can be perceived in the smallest of details.
As someone who was staunchly pro-palestinian but as of recently came to have a more informed and I hope a more nuanced view of the whole situation, I can't help to see the title as potentially misleading :
Is the ICJ saying to prevent the Genocide (i.e recognizes that a genocide is happening) or to prevent a potential genocide (that is it believes the situation could escalate towards a genocide) ?
From what I have read this is the second option, so I believe the title could be misleading. The more a topic has a loaded emotional and symbolic value, the more careful the wording must be.
Also I remember how annoying it was that people did not share my indignation and how I perceived such carefulness as a form of voluntary blindness.
I have not flagged it personally but I understand why someone would. I was just responding on "Couldn't this be the one discussion ?" and I think it's not, for the reasons above.
There are many discussions worth having, not all discussions worth having should be on HN.
Ages ago I had a job working in online advertising. My comment a the time was this "Advertising is worse than porn, but working here I can go home to my feminist girlfriend and not get shit for it."
Technology and politics have always had an intersection but unless it was part of your job, it was somewhat avoidable.
This is no longer the case. The simple word "alignment" means that these sorts of classical political issues have direct impact on tech, platforms and what they do. We, as a group, who has a unique view of what freedom means (speech, software and that intersectioN) should be acutely aware of the chilling effect we're living under on this topic. Even here where the discourse remains (mostly) civil there are those who will attempt to just shut it down.
I would be keenly interested to see how heavily this gets flagged and how that compares to other topics. I doubt dag would tell us but I could hope!
That is, especially some of the statements by senior officials could be understood as genocidal.
What I gleaned from reading blogs: It is likely that the actus reus for genocide is there but intent will be very hard to prove if it exists