> The whole Covid fiasco can't really be discussed on HN.
"Covid fiasco" is not a monolith.
On one side, there are people with a position "Covid is much less severe than we though, we should have just let it spread through population, and go on with out lives as normal, like we do with flu. The fiasco is that we tried to control it at all."
On another side there is a position "Covid is a more severe disease than we realize. It affects multiple organs, and after repeated infections some people will get long covid for years, or permanently. We should still aim to restrict the spread of the virus, not anymore with lockdowns, but with clean indoors air, and keeping using masks is crowded situations and in healthcare. The fiasco is that we gave up on trying to control the infections."
The real question is not so much "can I do it on HN or other niche forum X" but "can I do it anywhere where people with polar opinions can have a reasonable debate", and even more interesting "can I say this in public, where my face is in punching distance" and then the ultimate "can I say this in an election campaign" (at which point even basic facts are off limits).
I would wager most folks on the keyboard warpath (or podium/camera) would be much more civil with their alleged target if they were sitting across the table from them.
Are you implying that internet giving voice to people without power to do violence is a bad thing? Should only strong and powerful be given freedom to speak?
This whole thread is beyond the point, since the original commenter asked which are the topics that you can't discuss on HN. Your replies only confirm that Covid is indeed a topic that you can't discuss on HN.
---
I'll reply for completeness anyway:
> I can see why a forum would want to control what topics are on and off topic.
There's a difference between banning flamewars and banning any kind of discussion. I am talking about the latter, not the former, which did indeed happen during Covid.
> Obviously you can say anything you like on unmoderated places like 4chan, but what does that prove?
Indeed, 4chan was the place where you could see discussion about the Covid policies and the media claims, from masks to lockdowns and mandatory vaccines - in fact, it was the one of the only places you could talk about it. Many of the things discussed there turned out to be true.
"Covid fiasco" is not a monolith.
On one side, there are people with a position "Covid is much less severe than we though, we should have just let it spread through population, and go on with out lives as normal, like we do with flu. The fiasco is that we tried to control it at all."
On another side there is a position "Covid is a more severe disease than we realize. It affects multiple organs, and after repeated infections some people will get long covid for years, or permanently. We should still aim to restrict the spread of the virus, not anymore with lockdowns, but with clean indoors air, and keeping using masks is crowded situations and in healthcare. The fiasco is that we gave up on trying to control the infections."