The link explains (again, at about as much length as you have patience for - these discussions have been going on for years) how this works on HN - you have to take at least some of that stuff in and engage with it, if you want to advocate for some sort of change. Being offhandedly reductive about it or explaining how this one thing is actually really important is not that.
We get all this news, but we cannot talk about it because there was a thread a couple of weeks ago which talked about journalists being targeted[2].
This is an ongoing catastrophe, and we need to have an ongoing conversation about it. When new information is reviled we need to have a conversation. As a forum popular in our industry HN needs to own up its societal responsibility. There is a lot of tech being used in this genocide, and as workers in tech, we should know our part. As long as this genocide continues, we cannot stop talking about Gaza
This is an ongoing catastrophe, and we need to have an ongoing conversation about it. When new information is reviled we need to have a conversation.
Little of what has happened in the... I think 3? gigantic threads that have been on HN about this qualifies as 'conversation' so there's that enourmous problem, given the remit of the site. And just as importantly, 'we need to have a conversation' is not a meaningful practical approach for obvious reasons, about any topic in a limited space. The case needs to be made more specifically and probably addressed at someone who can take it into consideration which would be hn@ycombinator.com
As dang once said early in ChatGPT's hype, if AI were good enough to generate the insights brought from conversation here, at as good or better a level than humans are able to, he'd consider replacing the open forum with AI generated content. Because it would serve the purpose of the site, which is not community.
He didn't say the bit about this not being a community, that's what I inferred