I don't find your analysis compelling.

I've seen you post it elsewhere, for example when DOGE illegally entered government buildings and siphoned off americans data.

During that time apologia for this coup was voted to the top and most of the criticism of the ongoing actions were swiftly flagged and removed. Similar things happened for the michigan assassinations.

I would truly be delighted to be wrong here.

You could release data to lend credence to your hypothesis. Other people have asked for this when you post this from time to time... and they usually get flagged and eventually go dead! If you feel so strongly that its true then show us: hacker news truly is apolitical. I sense however that that data would be damning, and we'll never get to see it.

Anecdotal comments from anonymous internet actors only proves that the mud slinging is equal. But if hacker news did have a right-wing troll problem, I would expect that to be the outcome.

I didn't say that HN was apolitical (an impossible state!). Rather I'm making an empirical observation about the users who complain, as you have, about how HN is biased in favor of the opposite side.

What I'm saying is that your perceptions and the perceptions of your opponents are the same, except for the high-order bit (the political direction you favor) which is 0 in one case and 1 in the other. You can pick whether you'd like to be 0 or 1 :) - apart from this, your perceptions about HN and the style of commenting are so similar that one cannot but conclude that some common mechanism underlies them. Whatever that mechanism might be, it can't be HN's bias, since by definition there can't be two opposing biases.

> You could release data

The public data is already more than sufficient and no one looks at it, except to bolster what they already believe, indeed are certain is obvious.