Those stories fell off the front page because of software that penalizes overheated threads, which tend to be shallow and sensational. That software has been running for years.
Even if an automatic penalty hadn't kicked in, moderators would have penalized that first link (even if we personally agree with what it says). First, it's a duplicate that adds no new information over previous incarnations of the story (which have already appeared more than once on the front page, already an indulgence and certainly not a pro-MS one). Second, it's a garden-variety riler-upper, and those aren't a good fit for HN, as should be well known by now.
None of these mechanisms has anything to do with Microsoft. I'm pretty sure that the bias you're arguing for doesn't exist at our end. How sure are you that you're not simply noticing things because they fit your interpretation?
Ok, fair enough. It's certainly a fine line. Though, a company is playing a not so nice but well known game, a game it is known for decades. And one can see how reasonable objective comments get downvoted and highly opinionated pro-biased comments get upvoted to influence the audience. And about stories, you rarely see objective stories about that company, because the fear to loose ads or the big gorilla and its lawyers. I will continue using a third party frontend, as HN frontpage hides some of the "heated discussions" or "high voted stories" that got flagged a lot too. But I am here because of the insightful comments and stories.
Even if an automatic penalty hadn't kicked in, moderators would have penalized that first link (even if we personally agree with what it says). First, it's a duplicate that adds no new information over previous incarnations of the story (which have already appeared more than once on the front page, already an indulgence and certainly not a pro-MS one). Second, it's a garden-variety riler-upper, and those aren't a good fit for HN, as should be well known by now.
None of these mechanisms has anything to do with Microsoft. I'm pretty sure that the bias you're arguing for doesn't exist at our end. How sure are you that you're not simply noticing things because they fit your interpretation?