Internal american politics, not of interest. Flagged.
If you think the submission is inappropriate for HN, flag and move on, as the guidelines ask.
Your criticism of HN being US-centric sounds like you believe it's deliberate and curated. For as much as it is so biased, I think it's an understandable consequence of something that falls out of the demographics of the members and their interests. A lot (not all, though likely a plurality) of the members are in the US. While the community isn't entirely tech and start-up focused, there is a large interest in these areas. A lot of interesting tech companies are US-based. Silicon Valley is in the US. Y Combinator, affiliated with HN, is in the SF Bay area. It makes sense that a lot of submissions would also be US-centric, and, unfortunately, what might get flagged.
I don't see a large number of members actively arguing that HN doesn't have a lot of US-focussed content.
Perhaps the submissions and which get flagged don't completely align with your own interests. And I can understand how that could be frustrating. That's not necessarily because of some cabal actively keeping things focussed on the US.
Personally, I think HN has too many political discussions regarding US politics, prompted by the recent US elections. And I'm doing what I can as a member to shape HN just as any other member can. And a lot of the political submissions are getting flagged. People are complaining about that as well. (Look just in this thread!) It's the nature of the demographics and interests of the members.
Edit to add: A lot of the HN submission and comment data is available via the HN APIs. I've often thought it would make an interesting study to dig into that data to confirm or disprove perceptions of bias like this (though, in this case, I'm sure there is an unsurprising, strong US-tilt to submissions). If you chose to do so, please share the results on HN. I know I'd be interested!
Thanks for replying, and for clarifying. HN is, as you are also admitting in a subtle way, anglo-centric. It does not really matter if that's a policy or an emergent property. The consequence is that you attribute more importance to issues related to your cultural area of influence.
Readers should be aware about this, and I would like this to be plainly obvious to everybody. I have never implied that this is HN policy, but it's a fact.
The reason why I insist is because HN usually pretends this not to be the case, and attributes to perception biases any mention of the problem. Even your post goes in this direction.
as you are also admitting in a subtle way, anglo-centric.
I don't think there was anything subtle about it. (I do think anglo-centric is the wrong word to use, unless you mean English-language, or England in particular.)
The consequence is that you attribute more importance to issues related to your cultural area of influence.
That's natural for anyone, to some extent. I'm sure you and I have different interests based on our, um, different interests.
HN usually pretends this not to be the case
This seems to be the crux of it for you. I'm sure there are a couple instances of people saying this, sheerly because of the number of comments that have been posted over the years. Can you come up with support for this statement?
attributes to perception biases any mention of the problem
You'll need to be specific here, because otherwise it's difficult to ascertain whether or not it's perception or not. And, honestly, to move the discussion forward, I don't know how useful anecdotal evidence by you or I is going to be able to do that. You blew past my comment regarding other political submissions flagged, and in the previous thread you reference above, didn't address another's comment that submissions related to the Orlando attacks were flagged as well.
Even your post goes in this direction.
Will you elaborate? I do think there's a lot to perception bias. I check myself for it often. I've gone through threads a number of times, assessing comments for bias one way or another, both to check my own bias and others, when they make comments such as yours.
If you think the submission is inappropriate for HN, flag and move on, as the guidelines ask.
Your criticism of HN being US-centric sounds like you believe it's deliberate and curated. For as much as it is so biased, I think it's an understandable consequence of something that falls out of the demographics of the members and their interests. A lot (not all, though likely a plurality) of the members are in the US. While the community isn't entirely tech and start-up focused, there is a large interest in these areas. A lot of interesting tech companies are US-based. Silicon Valley is in the US. Y Combinator, affiliated with HN, is in the SF Bay area. It makes sense that a lot of submissions would also be US-centric, and, unfortunately, what might get flagged.
I don't see a large number of members actively arguing that HN doesn't have a lot of US-focussed content.
Perhaps the submissions and which get flagged don't completely align with your own interests. And I can understand how that could be frustrating. That's not necessarily because of some cabal actively keeping things focussed on the US.
Personally, I think HN has too many political discussions regarding US politics, prompted by the recent US elections. And I'm doing what I can as a member to shape HN just as any other member can. And a lot of the political submissions are getting flagged. People are complaining about that as well. (Look just in this thread!) It's the nature of the demographics and interests of the members.
Edit to add: A lot of the HN submission and comment data is available via the HN APIs. I've often thought it would make an interesting study to dig into that data to confirm or disprove perceptions of bias like this (though, in this case, I'm sure there is an unsurprising, strong US-tilt to submissions). If you chose to do so, please share the results on HN. I know I'd be interested!