I'd argue that HN has a built-in mechanism for determining what's interesting to its users. If a Bitcoin related story gets voted up to appear in the top page every day, then maybe it should be there.
There is value in curating HN. People come to HN because it has a reasonably high signal to noise ratio in a certain realm. Highly charged topics tend to drive upvotes, even if it's just a 'like' or a, 'yeah, that's important, I'll up-vote it'. I didn't really start visiting HN for politics or shocking stories; those tend to disproportionately draw upvotes. I'm not in favor of downmodding non-tech articles, but there's something to be said for those who do.
There are more important things in the world than Bitcoin, but I'm happy to see a bitcoin article, perhaps two, on the front page anytime something interesting is happening.
Disclaimer: I have no idea if that explanation is true. But if so, then you don't want to be the kid with his finger in the dike.
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
Some people (but not me) flag all Bitcoin articles. Other people appear to flag many of them.
Bitcoin is fascinating. Lots of the technical stuff is poorly understood. Lots of the economics stuff is poorly understood. Unfortunately most of the threads are more heat than light, so I understand why people do flag Bitcoin threads.
It's rumored that flagging something when the majority don't want it flagged will likely backfire.
I thought the flagging system used a scale of importance based on the users history. If you show good history of flagging, your action is more important. Same goes if you show poor history of flagging.