Look away from what? Musk and his antics show up in threads regularly. But it can't be on the front page 5 times a day. There's an article discussing current admin shenanigans on the fp right now.
The problem is that so much of the tech industry is now precisely about politics and power. The problem is that so much of the tech industry it is now explicitly and directly connected to it.
If Hacker News doesn't have the wherewithal to face up the these realities then it really should think about a name change.
I don't understand what that's supposed to be denying. I'm just explaining how HN works. The connection between tech and politics is hardly new and it's discussed on HN all the time. I mentioned there is a current events discussion on the front page right now and I got it wrong - there are two, and that's not counting the many places these topics come up in other threads. I just don't see how you arrive at this 'looking away' business. Not having a thread for every Elon Musk goosestep is not 'looking away', it's just no the sort of place that has a thread for every Elon Musk goosestep.
Does anyone have anything new to say on these topics? We're going around and around in circles. Is there a substantial discussion? Do we learn anything new?
Maybe so. But I still don't have to talk about it here. There's lots of places to talk about politics, and Musk, ad nauseum. HN is supposed to be about something else.
Politics may be destroying a large number of things right now; I don't want it to destroy this site too.
It may be falling short of what you think it should be. A bunch of the rest of us don't think that, though.
You may feel strongly about what you think we should do, but you don't get to tell the rest of us what the site should be about. You don't get to tear up the community guidelines and write your own.
Let HN be what it is. If that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does.
> It may be falling short of what you think it should be.
It may not be falling short of what you think it should be.
> A bunch of the rest of us don't think that, though.
And if a bunch of us do think that, what then?
> You may feel strongly about what you think we should do, but you don't get to tell the rest of us what the site should be about.
Sure, but neither does anyone else. Like, ehm, you.
> You don't get to tear up the community guidelines and write your own.
What if many of us think they might need a few changes? What if most of us do? I mean, you seem to be arguing on the assumption that nobody, or at least almost nobody, does. Do you have any statistics to back that up?
> Let HN be what it is.
(At the risk of sounding somewhat Clintonian:) So what "is" HN?
If you're going to say "What it's always been!", then... No. It already isn't. Becasuse nothing ever is "what it's always been". Eternal constants don't exist; everything changes all the time. (Guy I used to know back in Ephesus used to say that.) HN now is already something very different than what we got user IDs on back in 2013, and it ain't gonna stop changing. So where were you with your resistance to change for the last dozen years or so?
> If that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does.
"Just because the Democratic Party is actually advocating labour camps for capitalists and mandatory sex change operations for everybody now is no reason for you to demand it should change! Let it be what it is, and if that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does!"
"Just because the Republican Party is actually advocating concentration camps for immigrants and mandatory megachurch membership for everybody now is no reason for you to demand it should change! Let it be what it is, and if that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does!"
See how ridiculous that is? So no, that's not how any of this works.