Comment by YeGoblynQueenne

Sorry again. This must be a hard day for the moderation team. My <3 <3 <3 to all of youse.

(My partner claims "<3" looks like I'm mooning you. I assure you that's not the intended meaning).

I'm afraid the answer is boringly straightforward: users flagged those articles, and either we didn't see them or we chose not to turn off the flags. Most likely we didn't see them.

The usual pattern is that flags come from a 'coalition' of users: some because they hold opposing views, while others just think the story doesn't belong on HN. Maybe they think it's off-topic or otherwise against the site guidelines, or they think the story has already been covered a lot recently, or who knows what.

I took a look at the flags on your two submissions. They followed this pattern. I saw one user whose flagging history looked primarily political, but only one—less than I expected to see. Among the others, here's a sample of other stories that at least one of those same users has flagged:

An Open Letter to the Next School Shooter - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39160294

As you can see, there's a range of topics there (all the way to outright spam) and possible motives for flagging. The last one is interesting because unless I'm mistaken, it has opposite politics to the articles you posted. This is a sign of what I mean when I say that not all flaggers are politically motivated.

So that's the flagging side; now for the admin side:

First, we can't moderate anything we don't see and we don't come close to seeing everything. There's just too much. If there's an article you (or anyone) think particularly deserves consideration, I can always be reached at hn@ycombinator.com and I'm happy to take a look.

When deciding whether to turn off flags, one thing we consider is whether a story is substantive enough to provide a foundation for a thoughtful discussion rather than a flamewar. (On a topic like the OP, the odds are sadly awful no matter what the article is, but it is still an important consideration.) I hear you that you think your posts met this condition—I haven't read them, but let's say that's correct. The thing is, it's a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. There are other concerns.

For example, we have to consider how much the topic has been covered recently, and how much coverage of it HN can 'take' without showing signs of breaking under the strain.

People have wildly diverging views about how much is too much. For some users with strong feelings on a topic, no coverage can ever be too much; any limitation at all must be proof that the mods are biased against it. For other users, any coverage is already too much and proves the mods are biased against them. So it goes.

It's trickiest when there's a major ongoing topic that goes on for months and generates a series of stories. We can't just say "no, HN covered that a couple months ago" if there has been a significant state change; but we also have to be careful not to let many follow-up articles onto the front page (e.g. articles that repeat what has already been discussed, perhaps adding some minor twist or opinion take, or media outlets circulating their own version of the same story), because they'll use up the community's 'attention budget' for that story, leaving nothing for later.

For example in 2013, the Snowden saga dominated HN's front page—there were so many follow-up articles that when something important did happen (e.g. when he finally left Hong Kong or whatever), it got drowned out, or bogged down in the "I'm so sick of all these posts" complaint that repetition inevitably generates on HN.

The principle we ended up settling on was the Significant New Information (SNI) one: does the new submission count as SNI in the sequence of threads that have already happened? SNI can mean some objective new development in the story; or it can mean something with enough of a diff from previous related submissions to count as a somewhat different topic.

There are other considerations too, for example about HN as a whole, which is a different scope than a particular topic. But this comment is already too long, so I'll skip those, and anyway I wouldn't be able to remember them all.

Putting all of the above together, your submissions got flagged by regular users for regular reasons, and we either didn't see them or decided not to turn off the flags, probably not because the articles weren't substantive enough, but rather because either (1) the topic had had a major thread recently; or (2) we didn't think they cleared the bar for SNI. I'm just speaking generally because I don't have any memory of those posts.

I'm afraid I've given a false impression that this is all somehow orderly or co-ordinated. It isn't. It's random and ad hoc, and various random factors (like whether we see something at all) are at least as significant as all this stuff. It's not a repeatable process. Moreover, we just make bad calls sometimes—especially in hindsight. Some of it is accidents of timing. People are far too quick to infer general patterns from specific data points they observe. That's true about everything on HN, but it gets more true as the emotions are more engaged.

I have one last thing to respond to in your comment:

> I've been posting this stuff for months and now the subject has exploded in mainstream discourse with the ICJ case, which makes it even more emotionally charged than before. Wouldn't it have been better to get a chance to discuss this before it got to this point?

I don't think that's right. It was just as emotionally charged before, and threads about those articles you posted would have ended up in the same place that this thread did, as did the earlier threads in this sequence. So no, I don't think it would have been better to discuss before it got to this point; I think it's the other way around—by waiting till this point, we at least had clear grounds for having a thread, since there's no question that this was SNI.