Again, HN mods don't do most moderation on site, and see only a very small sampling of comments (<https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>).

I don't know if they have specific tools to identify potentially problematic posts (P3?), though the flamewar detector and member flags would be obvious proxies. I've often had success in emailing specific issues (e.g., "ideological battle", "personal attacks", etc.)

But the way to address HN guidelines violations is to vote and flag violations yourself, and email mods for egregious cases. Perpetuating flamewars and violations is right out: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>.

If you'll spend a few moments contemplating what it takes to discuss highly controversial topics, political or otherwise, I suspect you'll realise that HN simply isn't equipped for that, and that very few open-access sites are.

(That'd be "none" in my experience, though I really wish it weren't the case. And if anyone cares to suggest what might make this possible or suggest literature on the topic, I'd appreciate it. Jürgen Habermas is the usual susepct though I haven't gone over his work on social discourse as thoroughly as I'd like.)

Edit/addition: HN moderation follows guidelines rather than content (to the extent that these can be distinguished). Which means that mods look to the guidelines for how to moderate, or justify those moderation decisions. The other site characteristic dang's commented on several times is how fragile the entire community is, and that most of the moderation is geared more around maintaining the community rather than bolstering or suppressing specific viewpoints (see: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>). Again, I've concerns with how this tends toward status quo bias, though that doesn't seem to be the principle focus of your own concerns here.

And on analysing post flags, I simply don't have insights into that data, though there are some proxies for this which I'd commented on in the comments search linked earlier. (Mostly: what topics/sites tend to see more/less flame/spiciness tendencies. Sites / topics (or word tokens) / submitters with a high comments-to-votes ratio would tend to be "spicier", and in general, odds are greater that moderator intervention has occurred for those cases. I've not looked into that specifically however.

I mean, the guidelines [0] explicitly say,

> Please don't post shallow dismissals

I think it's reasonable to flag items which violate the site guidelines.

> for example #1 is not offtopic at all, it's a direct reply

I didn't say it was offtopic, I said it was offtopic whataboutism. All whataboutism is offtopic. Its entire purpose is to terminate conversation about the allegation(s) in question. Just because someone posts a reply doesn't mean the reply is on-topic.

As for the linked post, it's whataboutism, a shallow dismissal, and an insult to boot. A non-shallow dismissal would respectfully and directly address the allegations presented in the warrant. You can disagree with the court without being disagreeable, but that precludes inflammatory statements like "If this was a real court..." (it is one).

> And the one-sided nature of flagging is also fine with you?

I expect to see a level of flagging against each side in rough proportion to that side's inflammatory, off-topic, or rule-violating posts. For example, you previously linked to blatant racism against arabs, expressing confusion as to why it got flagged. Isn't it obvious? Racism is bad, dude.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

unflagging anti-israeli articles while keeping articles about other major events that have appearance of pro-israel - is bias.

banning pro-israeli posters after a few messages supporting israel for "it's not place for political discussions" and keeping on-site those who post continuously anti-israel articles - is bias.