Well the argument was that Hackernews would no longer exist, and I asked why and your response was that it would be like the NY Times, but the NY Times website does exist so I don't understand what point you are trying to make then.
Got it. If the page doesn't fulfill the original purpose that people wanted to go to it, it ceases being interesting. The fact that the page merely exists is meaningless, much like a blank website.
Well, you pointed to the NYTimes which, again, has not changed, so what is your point? Maybe the NYTimes is not a good example? I don't know, you brought it up. Are you saying the NYTimes is not an interesting website? It seems to also have the news and discussion of the news, so what exactly am I missing?