[mtrimpe]

No; it's going to fall off the front page because 10% of readers were irked by the story.

That is taking a stance on how to approach discussions on sensitive topics and is exactly what I was talking about.

What would happen if that weren't the case is pure speculation; because for all we know a common consensus would quickly emerge if these discussions would be allowed to run their course.

[ericd]

No, it's a feature of the software designed to avoid flame wars on the front page.

And from my time on the internet, I can tell you that maybe everyone who is still around at the end of the discussion will be on the same page, but it's not going to be nearly everyone that started, and along the way, a lot of people will have developed negative feelings towards each other.

[mtrimpe]

Except that flame war is code for 'heated discussion' and it's a conscious choice by YCombinator not to let heated discussions, whether positive or negative take place.

There are numerous ways to deal with the issue of flame wars, from human moderation to Reddit-style collapsing of threads.

My point is that YCombinator chose the 'drop discussions at first sign of controversy' path because it aligns best with their corporate interest.

[ericd]

It has nothing to do with YC "corporate interest" (YC is about as far from that kind of thinking as you can get). It has everything to do with keeping this place a place for calm intellectual discussion rather than debate between sides with deeply entrenched beliefs that are unlikely to change. A lot of online communities devolve into a constant state of that, and it ends up driving away people who want to discuss intellectual things.

PG stresses over how to design the software for this place such that its community doesn't fall into the common traps that online communities usually do. That's not what most people are here for, and in the end, a minority would spoil this for the majority.