Are there other topics besides politics that regularly get flagged for being repetitive?
HN has had a well-defined and stable set of principles for answering that for many years now. It goes back to the Snowden avalanche of 2013 [3], when the front page got overrun by follow-up stories and duplicate discussions, and there was a user backlash to that.
(I call these principles well defined and stable because they've held up well over the years, and because once we figured them out we haven't had to change them.)
It goes like this: when there's a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) [4], we try to reserve frontpage time for articles that contain Significant New Information (SNI) [5], and which seem like they have a chance to support a substantive, and substantively different, discussion. Articles which don't contain SNI, we tend to downweight as follow-ups [2].
This applies to flags too. When an article meets the above criteria but has been flagged by users, we're open to turning off the flags [6]. When an article has been flagged but doesn't meet those criteria, we tend to leave the flags on.
Sometimes, an article contains SNI but also is written in a way that seems to have no chance of supporting a substantive discussion, for example it's so inflammatory or one-sided that it seems doomed to instant flamewar. In cases like that, we wait for a more neutral article about the SNI. If the information really is significant, one should come along soon enough.
That is the answer to your objection here: "we can't talk about the next thing because we just talked about the last thing".
We can and do talk about the next thing, but it's a question of what the "next thing" is: how do you define what counts as a next thing (a new story) rather than a repetitive variation on the last thing [7]? We do that according to the principles I just described.
Of course, this shifts the question to "which articles contain SNI", and users frequently disagree about that. But I'm not talking here about specific calls on particular articles, but rather the principles by which we make those calls.
The specific calls we make are inevitably inconsistent and sometimes mistaken. That's ok; we can't be consistent at the level of individual cases (though we're consistent at the level of principles [8]), and we can't not make mistakes, but we're open to reversing a call when users make a good case for why an article meets the principles and we made a bad call about it.
To make such a case, you have to know what the principles are and make your argument based on them.
Most users don't do that—rather they post blanket complaints about how "all $FOO stories are suppressed on HN", the mods are imposing their pro-$FOO or anti-$FOO agenda, and so on. This is understandable as a reflexive response to seeing things one dislikes [9] (e.g. an important $FOO story being [flagged]). But it doesn't help us do a better job as moderators.
To help us do a better job, you (I don't mean you personally, but anyone) need to address what HN moderation is trying to achieve: what kind of site HN is supposed to be (optimized for intellectual curiosity [10], not current affairs [11]), what the fundamentals are (e.g. frontpage space is the scarcest resource [12] and we can't simply turn off flags on all political stories or even all important ones), and what the principles are, as I've described them above.
---
[1] The mind resorts to indignation to amuse itself in the absence of new information - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] We tend to downweight follow-ups - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[3] The Snowden deluge of 2013 taught us how (not) to moderate a Major Ongoing Topic - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[4] For a Major Ongoing Topic, some but not all submissions should have major threads - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[5] The primary criterion for a new major thread is Significant New Information - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[6] How we think about turning off flags on a story - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306
[8] Moderation is inconsistent at the level of individual posts, but consistent at the level of principles - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[9] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[10] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[11] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[12] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Doesn't sound right to me.
When I look at the number of flagged political topics on /active (often which have clear connection to the software industry) I still only see a couple. Going from one such post on the front page to three doesn't seem like it would ruin the front page.
Why is "activation" bad?
What would "glut" mean to you? [...] Why is "activation" bad? [...] clear connection to the software industry*
The first two are basic concepts of how HN works, there is endless mod commentary about them (i.e. repetition, high-dudgeonery, etc) and you're surely familiar with them after a near decade here. The last one is a common misconception but HN's remit is not 'things with a clear connection to the software industry'.
If you want a different HN, advocate for that different HN instead of having me explain the existing HN to you - you can get better explanations elsewhere, beside the fact you're already likely familiar with them.
My claim is that it would not be so different that the front page is inundated with these topics while also ensuring that people are more able to talk about these topics when they feel it is relevant without being stifled by individuals.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
What would
There's no evidence to suggest this claim is true and a great deal that that demonstrates it isn't. This has happened on HN several times and you were probably around for at least one of them.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
I, too, believe that you are. What is not clear to me on why you believe these things and how they would improve HN. Like, you know the design of HN because a) you're using it b) it's been explained a bunch plus there's ready access to lots more. What's your design? How is this going to work, what part of HN has to be changed and what consequences do you think that would have? What about the kind of consequences the current design tries to avoid? "I'd like more of these stories on the fp" is not that, it's just a statement of preference.
You do you, I guess. I think that the community and industry is impoverished by these topics being limited in this manner.