I understand (and I'm not suggesting something has changed with the system recently) but personally I have seen a lot of big stories get flagged within minutes of reaching the front page despite have large, useful discussions within the comments. Normally these stories have a political bent or are world news stories that involve guns, terrorism, immigration and other similar topics. I have seen how comment sections on those topics can descend into useless arguments but often there is still useful content and relevance to technology.

Does the number of comments on a post get taken into account along with votes and flags? It seems to me that if a story is polarising people who disagree with it will be much more liberal with their down vote whereas people who may agree with it are taking the time to read and comment instead of immediately voting.

Hmm maybe it's a case of not enough of us upcoming the article. I know I'm pretty bad for it, I'll go straight to the HN comments the. Forget to upvote(hey it's a long way to scroll up!). I'll try to be better in the future :-s

Edit: @dang on the off chance you read his, is it worthwhile upvoting an article once it's dead? Or is the flag permanent?(I figure it's pissing against the wind, but I'd like to know either way).

In this case one group of people with similar political views is creating a safe space by silencing their opponents and preventing an inconvenient discussion. It is hard to see it any other way.

What is wrong with political discussions, as long as people are respectful of each others' views?

Like Snowden. Oh wait...