I didn't see the original post, but I probably would have flagged it if I had. Why? Because I don't consider discussing Megyn Kelly's thoughts on "wokeism" to be relevant, on-topic, or interesting in any way.
HN is a hacking and finance site. Expecting this link to not get flagged is like posting a thermite recipe to r/todayilearned and insisting it deserves a place because it taught you something.
I'm not sure whether dang flags posts or not. Flagging is mostly a community thing. So things get flagged when some number (more than one, but I'm not sure how many) of users flag them.
That's it. That's the rule.
(All right, it's a bit more complicated, because other users can vouch for things that are flagged, and they can sometimes be resurrected that way.)
So, the rule basically is, "whatever the community decides doesn't belong, and is badly enough out of bounds that it should be flagged". It's whatever the people decide it is, and the people don't give their reasons.
That said, that particular post I can see why it got flagged. Big-name journalists admitting that they lied on an important topic? That could be interesting, yes - especially if it's the first one, or a summary of a trend.
Megyn Kelly not using preferred pronouns? That's 1) not the same as lying, and 2) not interesting. That's just culture war junk, and all it's going to produce here is a flame war.
I didn't flag it, but that's my read on why it was flagged.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Different strokes for different folks, but a youtube video from a famous news celebrity apologizing for lying when covering a contentious topic should qualify as a worthy topic.
I don't know what video you're talking about but I would almost certainly have flagged a post like that. The last thing HN needs is "famous" "news celebrities" apologizing about lying.
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 26.4 ms ] threadThat's it. That's the rule.
(All right, it's a bit more complicated, because other users can vouch for things that are flagged, and they can sometimes be resurrected that way.)
So, the rule basically is, "whatever the community decides doesn't belong, and is badly enough out of bounds that it should be flagged". It's whatever the people decide it is, and the people don't give their reasons.
That said, that particular post I can see why it got flagged. Big-name journalists admitting that they lied on an important topic? That could be interesting, yes - especially if it's the first one, or a summary of a trend.
Megyn Kelly not using preferred pronouns? That's 1) not the same as lying, and 2) not interesting. That's just culture war junk, and all it's going to produce here is a flame war.
I didn't flag it, but that's my read on why it was flagged.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
This is beneath the interest of TV news.
I don't know what video you're talking about but I would almost certainly have flagged a post like that. The last thing HN needs is "famous" "news celebrities" apologizing about lying.