I've merged the other threads into this one, so you'll see some anachronistic timestamps below.
It's strange to see HN mods allow this much attention to a political, and contentious issue.
About that, there are lots of past explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Edit: more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48724830 in this thread
A 100% airtight filter against political articles seems unrealistic to maintain. Since “political” is itself not fully settled.
From an HN point of view the idea is to give the discussion a place, since the community obviously wants to have it.
EDIT: nvm it's rate limited
So where do you draw the line?
Just this week I saw multiple offtopic Epstein schizoposts by 10+ year old accounts that were alternately flagged and vouched. Should we allow that too?
My takeaway is this is a highly politically charged rant on a niche social media site — exactly the kind of discussion we're meant to avoid.
Things are rotten below ground and you give an inch, they'll want a mile.
Btw, I'm not claiming that we make every individual call correctly - that's an undecidable question anyhow since everyone will have their own evaluation of "correctly". But at the more general level of what principles to apply, I do think there's a certain consistency: they've been the same for many years, and we do our (fallible) best to follow them.
I'm also surprised. Usually opinions opposing the far right are removed from HN.