Has robot_head's comment been downweighted at all independent of member votes? If so, that would also be inappropriate.
Btw, you rewrote your GP comment after I'd already replied to it. I don't know what you mean by "bad call".
That said, I try not to be deceptive. I've got a 5 minute delay on my comments as well which I understand gives me a short window to edit before the content is publicly visible.
That said, the "bad call" was my interpretation of considering The Edge's Epstein connections as off-topic, apparently not your own meaning.
Conformant to your apparent intent, "why we allow posts from edge.org on HN" (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32984632>), I'd be willing to consider a down-ranking or outright ban of the site on the general principle that blind eyes to absolutely destructive criminality should carry a very strong social stigma, regardless of the merits of any given article. Again, the fact that The Edge fails to note this themselves, or make any clearly apparent apology despite playing a huge role in enabling Epstein's behaviour --- something I've been exploring in the course of this exchange and as a result of robot_head's comment --- is quite significant.
There's a huge harm done when people ignore gross harms done to others. All the more so when those doing so benefit directly from doing so.
HN itself seems to have largely ignored this issue until today:
<https://hn.algolia.com/?q=edge%20epstein>
There've been 30 submission from The Edge since 19 October 2020 based on HN's own site link: <https://news.ycombinator.com/from%3Fsite%3Dedge.org> (Archive: <https://archive.ph/8adBm>)
The first post matching that search to break 20 comments (a minimal notability threshold we've discussed before) was posted 5 hours ago as I write:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32982155>
I can see a legitimate argument for damnatio memoriae for The Edge.
