[jrflowers]

Women and healthcare are welcome to be discussed abstractly in their own silos, but mixing “women” up with the idea of “tech workers” in the context of moving to Texas is going to piss off a group of people that are less of a hassle to dang if he deferentially capitulates to their preferences in advance.

[dang]

I don't know who you're talking about but this was a straightforward moderation call, not some weird capitulation.

Nearly every time we moderate any X at all, someone jumps to the conclusion "mod secretly agrees with the enemies of X or is secretly under their power". But X varies across the set of all topics, so if this logic is correct, we'd have to secretly be favoring everybody's enemy.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[jrflowers]

> this was a straightforward moderation call, not some weird capitulation.

This makes sense. Despite the post being critically salient and undeniably on topic, it is a violation of the rules. Or not, just a moderation call or both or neither. Anyway despite the obvious relevance here the rules/your discretion (whichever one it is) have thankfully saved us from any discussion of the uncontested fact that this is a material issue and not an abstract discussion of moral issues.

I am sorry that I gave you the impression that this was some weird capitulation, that’s not the case. It’s a wholly normal and humdrum capitulation that is not in any way odd. Treating issues like this as abstract or unworthy of discussion is the norm in many industries, tech included!

The fact that the attorney general of the state can and will intervene between doctors and patients in order to further an ideological agenda is wholly abstract to a group that will insist that “this doesn’t apply to me personally and therefore is unworthy of discussion”. By default (either rules or moderation call, whichever) they have been deemed correct and endorsed here by explicitly disallowing any discussion to the contrary.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/sick-sick-enough-...

[genman]

I'm not sure what is going on here.

I can see that inflammatory comments are not equally disapproved https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39032567

Now instead of heated conversation there is no conversation and I'm not sure that it is a better outcome.

Were discussion about Foxxcon suicides equally moderated?

[dang]

> I can see that inflammatory comments are not equally disapproved https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39032567

That's just a case of us not having seen it. I've responded now. It's not possible for us to read everything that gets posted to HN—there's far too much. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). You can help by flagging it or emailing us at [e-mail].

> Were discussion about Foxxcon suicides equally moderated?

I can't fathom what that has to do with this, but the answer is of course. The principles are the same.

You can always find examples of comments that escape moderation on any side of any sufficiently-discussed topic. People are far too eager to make inferences about moderation bias from what is in fact just randomness.