[dang]

This is one of the most prominent ideological faultlines that exists. There can't be many HN readers who are unaware of where their interests lie on this question—most likely there are zero. So I don't buy the public interest argument here; I think this thread is just the usual ideological/political foofarah, and on that the HN standard is clear: it's not what this site is for. If people really wanted to factually inform one another in a helpful way, they would post entirely different comments from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020465. As I already said, it's not a borderline call.

Here's another way of looking at it, in case helpful: we don't want anything predictable on HN. The rhetoric that people resort to when an issue like this comes up is fierce, repetitive, and predictable. That makes sense—if you're fighting for a cause you feel passionately about, repeating the same points as intensely as possible is what you do. But all of that is off topic on this site. There are plenty of other places to post that way.

Edit: I know how strong the temptation is to read something like this and think that the mods are taking the wrong position* on (in this case) abortion rights, and then get super mad about it. But I'm not saying anything about abortion rights (or California vs. Texas) in the slightest. I'm just trying to do the pedestrian moderation job I always do.

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

[dredmorbius]

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39058763>

Political oppression is unfortunately highly predictable. This doesn't make it unworthy of discussion.

[dang]

HN is a site for intellectual curiosity. Predictability cuts directly against that. What do you think we should do—not be a site for intellectual curiosity anymore?

[dredmorbius]

The slope here isn't near that slippery.

There's been a tremendous shift in U.S. abortion, reproductive, and effectively general healthcare since the Dobbs decision in 2022, and Texas specifically has enacted some of the strictest and most vindictive state laws and policies, all of which would and should weigh heavily on the minds of anyone affected by Apple's decision here. Raising that point is absolutely on-topic in this discussion.

I'll allow that the "Thanks, Apple" wasn't strictly necessary, but even that seems within bounds given the circumstances and story.

If you'd like some guidelines here, I'd suggest that political considerations which impact on a story, particularly where those considerations have recently changed or are in flux (both of which apply here) should be permitted.

Totalitarian, repressive, and authoritarian governments and governance specifically operate on the very sort of generic, hot-button, emotionally-loaded issues and matters which HN typically eschews. Where those topics are not materially related to the story at hand I think that they can be reasonably admonished, particularly if the context and tone are inflammatory. In this case the consideration and its significance are material and relevant, even if Chron's own story omitted the consideration (a conspicuous omission itself).

HN's policy puts an extreme onus on those who call out repression, and is effectively a form of tone-policing. I've called this out in the past, and pointed out where you've acknowledged a comenter's stress in response, as here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37372792>

As contrasted: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37270026>, which bears repeating.

Your own insensitivity on this particular matter is truly disappointing.