I'll accept a little front-running then, if you don't mind.
Every pessimistic approximation isnt always good. We lose credibility when we keep doing it.
It hasn't yet captured the whole country. The parts of criticism they have had the power to silence, they have already silenced. Who's in the White House press corps again?
When they will capture all the power they need, the criticism will be silenced.
I fear that we might not see a definitive Democratic win though at the midterms. I think your country is already past the point of no return and your population is just not getting it yet.
I think I _am_ guilty of using a poor intellectual facade trying to make sense of this what the fuck historical moment we're in. Because trust me, my country is in a dangerous place as well.
posting isn't praxis. what do you think more articles on this site will achieve?
I'm not sure why you need to invoke cynical motives for us running HN this way, since the reasons we give for this (which are quite real) explain things better. (for example, if we only cared about suppressing this stuff, why would HN be having frontpage threads about it at all? that doesn't make much sense.) But that's just me.
I think it would help you guys to understand that most of the HN community, even most who agree with you politically, do not want us to throw in the towel and let HN become like the rest of the internet. Only a small portion of users want this, though they do post intense (and sometimes even aggressive) comments about it. Given that HN has always stuck to its mandate and that the community wants us to keep doing so, I don't see this as a close call.
Would you like to know the difference between those spaces and here? It's that in those spaces, regardless of if the members are left right or center, the community is on the same page in terms of authoritarians, and authoritarian apologia will get you tossed.
Therefore, there isn't the same sort of desire - or need - to point out the obvious and show the uncomfortable realities to the crowd.
Refusing to take a stand on this sort of thing and leaving it for the community to sort out will only make things worse. It's functionally no different than the kind of combative environment you get on major social media networks; the only difference is the amount of tone policing caused by the user-facing moderation tools.
Not only could you not allow the article posted, but even my comment on your actions was flagged. Stop censuring criticism because it makes you uncomfortable
This was on the frontpage for 18 hours yesterday: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46756117 - Jan 2026 (861 comments). 18 hours is about as much coverage as any frontpage story gets. It was there when I posted my GP comment and for a good 7 or 8 hours after that.
What you call "believing your eyes" depends on what you notice, which depends on how you feel (and particularly on what you dislike [1]). If you felt differently, you would notice different things and make different generalizations. (I don't mean you personally, of course—we're all this way.)
Your comment seems to assume that there must be one or more political stories on HN's front page at all times. There's no such rule. I get that you want more—everyone wants more of their preferred topics on HN's front page, including me. You're simply at odds with the kind of site this is and what we optimize it for [2], as well as with the bulk of the community, which wants something different than what you want. Treating that as moral failings of evil admins, accusing us of lying and so on, is not an interpretation I think most people here would agree with.
> even my comment on your actions was flagged. Stop censuring criticism because it makes you uncomfortable
Most of your comments aren't flagged. If you're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46758424, I imagine users flagged that one for being both false and aggressive.
Anyone who reads HN regularly knows that there's tons of criticism here of the site, the admins, the community - in fact, every aspect of HN is constantly being criticized and complained about. It's a bit odd to call that "killing all discussion that is critical."
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Glad to see this post didn't get flagged like the one that was posted yesterday on a similar topic about ICE data mining and user tracking.
Obviously I'm not the only one noticing the one sided censorship. If you want to ban political discussion, just be honest about it.
You called my parent comment false, yet this post is still flagged... Add gaslighting to the list. I better hush up before my whole account gets banned...
I'm not saying we always make the right calls on individual stories—we don't—but we try our best to apply those principles, as well as to explain them clearly.
---
Edit: you edited your comment after I replied - if you do that, can you please note where you're editing it? Otherwise it's unfair to readers, who can't track in what order the conversation developed.
I'm not sure I understand the last bit, but your comment which I called false is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46758424, and that was because everything it says is false. I didn't flag that post, didn't kill discussion, don't "protect the interests of this administration", and don't kill all discussion that is critical.
We don't ban accounts for criticizing us. We ban them for breaking the site guidelines.
If other users need this information, there are thousands of other posts where they can get it, and we post more every day. It's more or less always the same information because the underlying principles don't change, or at least haven't in a long while.
The US was supposedly ruled by a fascist in 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/books/review/jason-stanle...
There was also supposedly fascism coming in 2016: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/this-is-how-fascism-comes...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09626...
And yet we had elections in 2020. So whatever, it was clearly not authoritarian fascism because we had free elections that the authoritarian fascist was ousted in. So what I think I experienced there was semantic satiation with the word fascism.
EDIT: To clarify position vis a vis reply, I am simply saying that I have heard the word 'fascism' so much I don't really react with any sense when someone says it. It's like hearing 'rape' or 'spying' on Hacker News. I assume it means "I was shown a banner ad for toothpaste after searching for toothpaste". In other contexts those words have negative valence of great significance. In this context, I just glaze over.
Likewise, the word 'fascism' from a left-leaning outlet could be anything from the end of medicare subsidies to a drone strike on an Islamic fundamentalist general to charging fares on a train.
Just sharing how I feel about it. It does not have that emotional strength that it originally felt.
2015: You're overreacting!
2016: You're overreacting!
2017: You're overreacting!
2018: You're overreacting!
2019: You're overreacting!
2020: You're overreacting!
2021: You're overreacting!
2022: You're overreacting!
2023: You're overreacting!
2024: You're overreacting!
2025: How could we possibly have known things would have gone this way?!