I've suspected that Rayiner's posts were held to a different standard of moderation than others for _quite_ some time. Thank you for explicitly confirming this.
That's false. Any comment that breaks the guidelines should be flagged and killed, whether it's by rayiner or DonHopkins or anyone else. What we see with rayiner is that many of his comments are flagged because people object to his ideology, not because the comment is clearly in breach of the guidelines.
We don't give rayiner any special treatment; many of his comments get killed by flags and are left that way after we review them. But, whatever you think of his politics, he is an intelligent [1] and thoughtful person who has contributed to HN for over 15 years, and is deserving of the same kind of fair, respectful treatment by moderators and fellow community members that we'd extend to anyone else in that category. I don't see how discussions on HN would be improved if the number of notable conservatives/libertarians was much lower than it already is.
That's a very unrepresentative link. Someone interested in moderation bias should filter on flagged comments instead, if some search engine supports it. Let's just say that it doesn't require a sociology degree to see it.
We can learn much about someone from the best of what they post, and it can help us to put their worst into context. I feel like your comment is more cryptic than it would need to be if you had a clear point to make or a clear idea of what we should do differently.
> The conservatives have made it clear that they support the rule, but it needs to be done right.
They have _said_ that they support the rule. In recent years, conservative judges have said a number of things that don't hold up to any amount of scrutiny.
"Most of the federal government’s authority over the economy derived from a clause in the Constitution empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but the court construed the clause so narrowly that in another case that next spring, it ruled that not even so vast an industry as coal mining fell within the commerce power."
The "regulation of interstate commerce" now is a joke of a catchall which basically is modernly interpreted as "government can damn do what it pleases in every avenue of our lives" from its original interpretation which was "you can make sure horses can get from point A to point B".
The ruling with regards to interstate commerce was obviously correct. Local businesses even vertically integrated ones are part of a national marketplace
Many people disagree with that interpretation so its not at all obviously correct. It was not interpreted that way at all until FDR threatened to pack the court.
