Why does an article critical of Paul Graham get removed?

One reason we tend to flag down meta drama like this is that, for the most part, people on HN don't have a good mental model of how moderation works here. This is a good example; it can bother you that people flag stories, but everyone over the (low) karma threshold can flag anything --- if you do it abusively, you can quietly lose your flag powers, is my understanding, but that's it. It's not a conspiracy.

I flagged this post, just to be clear: it's drama about drama. There was an excellent post yesterday that was critical of Paul Graham: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25325716

Maybe the article was flagged after the author deleted it from Substack? Flagging an article just removes it from the front page, and since the link is broken (as commenters complained in the thread) then flagging it makes sense.

Edit: this comment seems to corroborate that theory https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25336393

Users flagged it. Moderators didn't touch it or even see it.

We sometimes turn off flags when an article contains significant new information and can support a substantive discussion in the community, but this was not that.

HN hosts tons of discussion about PG, much of it negative, so that's not the issue. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25325716 was just yesterday.

Perhaps a deleted article that called HN "toxic sludge" isn't the best topic of discussion?

> Though I can’t separate Paul Graham these days from the toxic sludge of Y Combinator and Hacker News

Unless you're suggesting some kind of conspiracy, the author most likely changed their mind and deleted it from their substack...

For those who would like an archive, I found one here: [0]. Also, it seems like someone flagged this post: [1], but it was not removed.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20201207190930/https://antipodes...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25335904

Some of his dirtbag acolytes have

it wasn't out of line or insulting or somethin

Are you sure about that?

Maybe people flagged it because of the ridiculously incendiary language? The subtitle is literally "And Y Combinator Should Die In A Taint Fire. Here's Why."

I'm not a fan of PG's latest musing either, but I thought the article was a little harsh. It looks like the author thought better of it to, after some reflection. He made some good points among the bad, so I hope he'll come out with a revision.

The author of that blog was banned from HN years ago, and he very much deserved it. If he can't comment on posts here, I don't see why he should be able to dodge that ban by submitting self-authored content.

A number of people over here just use “flag” (against the rules or robust discussion) for “flog” (anything irking or against the tide). Flagging should only be allowed to super-users, say karma 5000+, that is people with loooong experience over here and the utmost reputation, which actually make them moderators in pectore.

Paul Graham meets the definition of an intellectual.

He's not the greatest intellectual who ever lived, nor is he history's most lackluster thinker who still made it into the intellectual category.

To say he's not an intellectual is simply not factual; and non-factual cruft is fair game for deletion from Hackernews.

Furthermore, articles stating that someone is not an intellectual can be regarded as personal attacks; it's almost like saying someone is dumb.

Furthermore, HN cannot carry a story that references a dead link, for which there doesn't seem to be an archived copy anywhere. archive.org has a record of trying to access the article's URL on December 7th, which resulted in a 404.

Ok, well, after interacting with the author on Twitter a bit he does seem a bit weird (talking about death threats which could be true, but it also seems unlikely for such a low profile person): https://twitter.com/canolcer/status/1336033199936385024?s=20

I might have been a bit premature with accusing HN of "censoring". Still, this thread seems to get a lot of discussion and interest :-)

I think the article was useful and worth keeping up. (However it seems that the author himself unpublished the article from his Substack.)

All of the visceral reactions to the article are... very revealing. It's an opinion piece, and you don't have to agree with it. If you felt angered / hurt / offended by the author's words, I would challenge you to do some introspection – and explore the reasons why it generated such a strong reaction for you. You may find the process to be quite beneficial!

That particular author has a reputation such that it wouldn't surprise me if some people flag anything he writes.

This community does not like it when others ask hard questions of their heros. Look at the first coverage of Tony Hische as a prime example.

HN is a private forum. They can do whatever they want with posts. They're not obligated to accept anyone's content or posting.

Fucking hell, PG writes one "off" article and the gazzilions of helpful ones are ignored, the billions in wealth he has created, the public service he has performed, is thrown in the trash for a cheap character assassination. I am glad it was flagged it was total melodramatic bullshit.