> the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet. Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid

You see an obviously ludicrous bill, and instead of asking “How did this bill even get here in the first place?” you instead question whether or not the source is (I’m assuming) anti semitic?

I’m assuming you’re acting in good faith, because otherwise that’s a very underhanded way to run defense for a genocidal ideology.

That this law was even proposed indicates there’s some very anti-American forces running our government.

When someone wonders about the the journalistic bona fides of an outlet, it is often because they want to know if the information being presented is accurate and balanced.

For example, do they mention that the bill has a carveout for First Amendment protected speech? I didn't see that mentioned, but it's right there in the bill, below the definition of "material support" (which they also don't cite).

These definitions may be applied in ways that are not fair by the government, but any journalistic outlet worth its salt would include them in their writeup. It seems that this article is more meant to raise alarm and paint the other side as extremists, rather than inform the readership about what has actually been proposed (with all its warts).

See the last line of my comment.

> Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid

All i was doing was saying specific wording used in the article causes me to update slightly against the site being unbiased and neutral. There is no grand conspiracy by me here. There is no comment nor opinion on Israel/Palestine within the comment.

The top comment on HN discussions often devolve into various other discussions. Funny that is never 'underhanded' discussion, but outside of the pale when it comes to this topic. You can't have a good faith HN discussion on this topic.

Normally on HN people refute arguments, not resort to just 'bad faith'.