I don’t even necessarily agree with the author’s arguments and conclusion, and honestly I have no clue what to think with all the information I hear that is constantly changing from the various tribes.
But when something gets flagged simply because he advocates for ending the lockdown, I go from thinking the lockdown is probably necessary and trust the decision is made for reasons I don’t understand, to thinking like the paranoid conspiracy theorist that this is just a totalitarian power grab, and figure the need to suppress dissent means that it is more likely his position is the right one. If the ideas he is presenting are so stupid then people can decide that for themselves and don’t need some moral busybody protecting us from thinking for ourselves by flagging anything that states the opposite of what their tribe thinks is true.
You might not like or agree with article, but I actually found it very well reasoned and provide alternative point of view to a very important discussion.
Thus I'm really puzzled why this community would flag it, it is disappointing frankly.
I'm flagging it because it's just presenting the view of some guy who asserts something.
There's not enough information in there for a fact-based discussion. Since this topic is unfortunately a politically loaded one, that basically guarantees the discussion is going to turn to shit.
If somebody were to post an article presenting clear arguments based on data, I wouldn't flag.
I wonder what is the thought process of people who flag this article? To me, it seems well written, it doesn't take sides, it makes an argument in favor of free speech, it is against power play. Could you briefly explain why you area flagging it?
It was flagged likely because it came off as rancorous and provided incorrect statistics. It would have been better if he supported his claims with stronger arguments. Hopefully someone else can write a post which investigates this trend without the hyperbole.
Articles like this seem to bring out people involuntarily triggered to grind their pet axe. The discussion is never enlightening. That's why I flagged.
> Is this misinformation/propaganda? Maybe, maybe not, but false positives are better in cases like this than false negatives.
You question people's motivation when it comes to submissions. Why not when it comes to flagging? Does it foster intellectual curiousity to flag a story by a renowned investigative journalist?
In any case, what's surprising to me here is the reaction to dang's reasonable justification for disabling the flags on this story. I think those who continue to push for its removal after flagging have moved beyond "I personally don't think it's a suitable topic" to "I don't want anyone else to read it". I find the latter attitude very worrying.
Why is this flagged? It seems like an opinion from an informed user, an opinion like many others I've read in HN. Also, it was an interesting read for me.
OP here -- I would also love to know why this post got flagged. I posted this because I was interested in the HN community's thoughts on the article as I try to decide what to think of it, and not because I was agreeing or disagreeing with it, or to push some agenda or other.
I would like to know the reasoning of anybody flagging this submission after having read the posted article. The article supports neither political side of this conflict, but it appears to me that people are still unhappy about such content.
Probably was just flagged to death because people are getting overloaded with NSA stories, especially when there is no new additions. I would probably have flagged it if I saw it, doesn't really advance the discussion and frankly, I don't come to HN for politics.
Flagged, because too political. This is just outrage (even though I agree with it being a very bad thing). There's no way this news "gratifies someone's intellectual curiosity".
It's really sad that his story got flagged. I think it's a reasonable and well-argued opinion piece, and I can only assume it got flagged because some users vigorously disagree with the opinion. @mods any input?
I don’t even necessarily agree with the author’s arguments and conclusion, and honestly I have no clue what to think with all the information I hear that is constantly changing from the various tribes. But when something gets flagged simply because he advocates for ending the lockdown, I go from thinking the lockdown is probably necessary and trust the decision is made for reasons I don’t understand, to thinking like the paranoid conspiracy theorist that this is just a totalitarian power grab, and figure the need to suppress dissent means that it is more likely his position is the right one. If the ideas he is presenting are so stupid then people can decide that for themselves and don’t need some moral busybody protecting us from thinking for ourselves by flagging anything that states the opposite of what their tribe thinks is true.
reply