HN is more of an echo chamber than reddit because the moderation can be effectively done by just dan and there's no subreddit niches on HN to allow diversity of opinions.
HN usually allows controversial comments to stand as long as they don't generate poor discussion. Sticking to the facts, presenting evidence and avoiding broad generalization helps. People often talk about controversial topics without being censored.
Many Reddit moderators straight up ban people who post stuff they don't agree with.
Sample size 1, great argument buddy. Go look at all the comments that get flagged every day, not for being inflammatory, but just for being unpopular. And unlike reddit you can't even read them on HN after they die. They're so afraid of dissenting narrative enough downvotes means deletion.
In practice, who the editor is and how they execute the task matters tremendously.
There's a frequent mantra by a certain segment of the population, tending to "but who should judge?", or the more pointed "what gives you the right to judge?"
My answer to the first is "someone who's quite good at it, and takes the responsibility seriously".
To the second: "who are you to say I cannot?" We are all judgement-making machines, so long as we have a functioning intellect. We're trying to fit our heads around an external reality, and, generally, make better rather than worse choices.
I'm a fan of systems with checks and balances, with principle, and with transparency. HN scores well on some points, less so on. others (notably transparency). A problem with transparency reports is that excessive detail is tedious and cantip off malevolent actors, insufficient can hide many sins.
Many Reddit moderators straight up ban people who post stuff they don't agree with.