I'd look hard at the logs, it certainly feels suspicious to me, although admittedly I haven't seen any commentator action suggesting anything other than a flagging campaign.
why would a pro-hillary group flag a story on here that says she's not guilty of crimes (or at least that charges won't be pursued due to the actions not warranting criminal prosecution)?
I'm literally in disbelief about how people think it's Hillary trying to hide these discussions. Liberal media, indeed...
This story shows how clinton is a liar. The lies started with "the personal server was only used for personal communications", when that was found to be a lie it changed to "no classified info was ever on the server", and when that lie was found out it was changed to "the only classified info was retroactively classified", and when that was found out to be a lie, it just went on and on until everything the most cynical observer alleged turned out to be true.
The record correctors are quick to point out that you aren't allowed to identify them, its part of the script they get whether or not its really a rule here.
Something needs to be done about this in my opinion. More and more over the last few months I've seen posts get flagged within minutes simply because someone disagrees with the content. Flagging should be for stuff that's irrelevant to HN and poor computer security practices by the woman running for president seems relevant to me - especially compared with a lot of the other stuff that gets upvoted.
It's political. Many people prefer to keep politics out of HN, and so it gets flag-killed. I don't really agree, but I can understand the desire for a politics-free area.
It seems relevant to you and off-topic to others. In such cases the votes and flags combine to produce a community verdict. Nothing has changed about that in the last few months.
We sometimes turn off user flags in exceptional cases but this doesn't seem like one to me.
I understand (and I'm not suggesting something has changed with the system recently) but personally I have seen a lot of big stories get flagged within minutes of reaching the front page despite have large, useful discussions within the comments. Normally these stories have a political bent or are world news stories that involve guns, terrorism, immigration and other similar topics. I have seen how comment sections on those topics can descend into useless arguments but often there is still useful content and relevance to technology.
Does the number of comments on a post get taken into account along with votes and flags? It seems to me that if a story is polarising people who disagree with it will be much more liberal with their down vote whereas people who may agree with it are taking the time to read and comment instead of immediately voting.
In this case one group of people with similar political views is creating a safe space by silencing their opponents and preventing an inconvenient discussion. It is hard to see it any other way.
Yep. Conservatives and their ilk are so thoroughly convinced of her guilt (and if not this, list off the 100 other witch hunts the republicans in congress have led against her).
They'd rather flag and stifle discussion than let people know that her actions didn't rise to the level of criminal charges. It is sad. It's also exactly what I've come to expect. People scream about the liberal media, and yet here we are watching a pro-liberal (in theory... i guess... maybe just not anti-liberal) story get censored as fast as they get posted.
Hmm maybe it's a case of not enough of us upcoming the article. I know I'm pretty bad for it, I'll go straight to the HN comments the. Forget to upvote(hey it's a long way to scroll up!). I'll try to be better in the future :-s
Edit:
@dang on the off chance you read his, is it worthwhile upvoting an article once it's dead? Or is the flag permanent?(I figure it's pissing against the wind, but I'd like to know either way).
You can vouch for dead posts by setting you "showdead" preference to "on". However, I cannot vouch this post, apparently because it is 'flagged' and not 'dead'. I could still upmod it though (probably useless?).
"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. Based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."
Perhaps we'll see Congress appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Yeah, what we need to do is appoint -another- hearing. Just like the eight, or was it nine, hearings into Benghazi, the how many hearings into 9/11.
This is why the branches of the government are separate, so political parties can't use them as attack dogs to further their own cause when they don't like things.
except there's a contingent of people (like the person you replied to) who won't accept anything short of jail time.
they've already made up their minds. she's guilty, 100-point-zero percent confidence, and anything that doesn't line up with that narrative is obviously crooked politics or whatever.
congress is the attack dog that the republicans have used for the better part of the last 2 decades to make anything stick to the clintons.
don't believe the lies about "where there's smoke, there's fire" here. they invented all the smoke, hoping you'll believe there's a fire.
30 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 78.0 ms ] threadI'd look hard at the logs, it certainly feels suspicious to me, although admittedly I haven't seen any commentator action suggesting anything other than a flagging campaign.
I'm literally in disbelief about how people think it's Hillary trying to hide these discussions. Liberal media, indeed...
This case (HRC's emails) is world news and has a strong technical component.
The flagged post links directly to the statement of the FBI. It is a neutral source and a better read than a lot of the news sites.
It is sad that HN in practice censors this stuff just because it is political.
We sometimes turn off user flags in exceptional cases but this doesn't seem like one to me.
Does the number of comments on a post get taken into account along with votes and flags? It seems to me that if a story is polarising people who disagree with it will be much more liberal with their down vote whereas people who may agree with it are taking the time to read and comment instead of immediately voting.
Edit: And the downvotes come in. You're all pathetic lol.
They'd rather flag and stifle discussion than let people know that her actions didn't rise to the level of criminal charges. It is sad. It's also exactly what I've come to expect. People scream about the liberal media, and yet here we are watching a pro-liberal (in theory... i guess... maybe just not anti-liberal) story get censored as fast as they get posted.
Edit: @dang on the off chance you read his, is it worthwhile upvoting an article once it's dead? Or is the flag permanent?(I figure it's pissing against the wind, but I'd like to know either way).
"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. Based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."
Perhaps we'll see Congress appoint a Special Prosecutor.
This is why the branches of the government are separate, so political parties can't use them as attack dogs to further their own cause when they don't like things.
they've already made up their minds. she's guilty, 100-point-zero percent confidence, and anything that doesn't line up with that narrative is obviously crooked politics or whatever.
congress is the attack dog that the republicans have used for the better part of the last 2 decades to make anything stick to the clintons.
don't believe the lies about "where there's smoke, there's fire" here. they invented all the smoke, hoping you'll believe there's a fire.