[twobyfour]

So are you suggesting that if I (the grandchild of Holocaust survivors) ran a link aggregator site, I would have a moral obligation to let self-declared Nazis who want to exterminate people of my ethnicity use it as a platform to speak about their hatred of people like me?

Or that a rape survivor has an obligation to allow someone to post on their site that there's no such thing as rape and every woman is "asking for it"?

I deeply question your moral framework.

[Sir_Cmpwn]

No, and that's not what I'm asking of HN. I like communities that:

- Have well defined rules

- Enforce them equally

- Moderate transaprently

That's it. I'm not asking for an unfettered platform for free speech. If one of your rules is "no hateful posts targetting specific people or people groups", then it's a well justified decision to remove that post.

[twobyfour]

OK.... so if I enforce "no hateful posts targetting specific people or people groups", I have to ban the person who posts "the KKK are awful people and I think we should jail them" as I do someone who posts "people with dark skin are awful people and I think we should burn them"?

[Sir_Cmpwn]

No. It's a gray area. What matters is being transparent and receptive to discussion about it.