[phist_mcgee]

Thanks dang. I do not think you are a chinese shill. But I do think your neutrality makes this site suffer, and I do think that there is a right and wrong side of this debate. You may think you are honourable in choosing neutrality, but I think in the end, you are enabling policies that hurt human beings under the guise of free speech.

[tom-_-]

I'd also like to thank dang for upholding the values of evidence, logic, diversity and respect that distinguishes HN from the mob mentality, flame wars and general toxicity that is social media.

[dang]

I'm not "choosing neutrality". That's not the issue nor how we think about it.

The issue is that HN has guidelines that people need to adhere to. It's not ok to break those, no matter how right your side is or you feel it is. Moreover, there's no need to, because you can make a much better case for your side by following them.

[colordrops]

I'm extremely glad they are not willing to censor speech for political reasons. There are dozens of other topics at least as controversial as the Xinjiang issue. Should we censor particular opinions on those as well? It's not tenable or healthy.