[a-t-shirt]

At least one moderator here (with the username "dang") has blocked discussion of the fact that white men are actually underrepresented in tech.

For example, take a look at this thread from about three months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7662013

He labeled the submission itself a "troll" (and locked it) because it generated what he called "high-indignation, low-information" responses. Read the responses and decide for yourself. It's pretty clear that "high-indignation, low-information" just means "doesn't support my ideology".

> it would be healthier if people stop this self persecution

If only it were self-persecution.

It's actually persecuting other (infinitely less powerful) white men and boys by implying "You—as a member of the group who will be most negatively affected by the policies we are discussing—are not allowed to object."

[dang]

> and locked it

That's false. We didn't lock anything. We simply made the post not be on the front page.

Edit: I posted a longer reply, but decided it was a bad idea.

[xiaoma]

I have to say that I've lost some respect for HN today. While there are many times I've missed the quality of the community from the early days of 2007, it's only been recently where I've wondered if the front page might be as censored as Digg was around the time I first discovered HN.

[dang]

Not sure what you're referring to? I can tell you, though, that HN has never been a purely vote-driven site, not in 2007 or any time since. It has always been a blend of user votes and moderator curation. What has changed is that (because users asked us to) we've been more transparent over the last few months about how the site works. It's a mistake to misinterpret this change in reporting as a change in HN itself.

[xiaoma]

I've been aware of the hiring ads on which no comments were allowed, of course. Have moderators been doing things like un-flagging and keeping specific stories they disagree with off the page for so long?

It is entirely possible I was mistaken, but I was under the belief that HN was mostly hands-off when it started. I.e., things other than clear attempts to spam, etc were off the page. Also, I think the focus of the site was narrower and clearer. It was dominated by technology and business with political pieces specifically discouraged. Now, political posts are pretty common. This broadening and blurring of the borders of what's "hacker news" can leave more room for mods to simply boost those they agree with and silence those they disagree with.

The particular article above is disturbing to see suppressed since it's clearly factual, isn't spam or similar and it's about the bay area tech scene, but apparently it's politically inconvenient.

[SamReidHughes]

> but apparently it's politically inconvenient.

This is merely a theory to explain your observations. I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours.

[xiaoma]

>I think a more plausible alternative explanation is that the moderators' beliefs about what makes up worthwhile discussion is different from yours.

I generally think it's worthwhile to let the community decide what's "worthwhile" and what isn't. Interfering to suppress spam or a flamewar is reasonable but interfering to suppress things which contain ideas you personally disagree with is not.

Similarly I don't have a lot of respect for you downvoting all my comments in this thread and on the previous one we were both on. It's the same principle, just on a lesser scale. I made a valid point in the GP post and was answering Dang's question.