There's plenty of places for flamewars; and the HN mods try to avoid hosting them. I can't disagree, the flamewars need to happen, but they don't have to happen here, and the HN policies have been applied with a consistent excellence that I respect.
I found the article interesting is all, probably because I just read a historical fiction book on post wwi Russia and so I thought it was a thought provoking article, that is good to discuss even if biased.
I think it is a fair point, and flagging it just seems to prove the point that criticism of “The Party” isn’t allowed.
I think HN mods do a good job too, but that is why this is disappointing to me. I’ve seen far more biased articles around politics, causing much more heated flame wars than this, that haven’t been flagged.
The mods will regularly remove flags from articles that are coming from a progressive point though, so I don't think the "no flamewars/flame bait" actually holds water.
I’ve brought this up on an article flagged in the past questioning the covid lockdown, but it was from a statistical based view and while I disagreed with some of the authors conclusions others I agreed with.
That article’s flag was removed and dang responded to my comment.
I wouldn’t assume all the moderators are biased.
I don't think it's an all out censorship-bias that you'd see on some echo chamber subreddit.
Rather, it's the moderators deciding that this submission isn't "interesting" and therefore remains flagged while the umpteenth anecdote about "X is discriminating against women" is interesting and novel and is totally not flamebait or identity politics and is therefore protected from being flagged.
It's fine, it's their site. I don't think it's useful to have illusions about it though.
