You're missing the point. The point is not that it's 'only bad if it happens often'.
The point is that if it happens to tens of millions of people, it's systemic. If it's a single case, it's an incident UNLESS there is evidence that it's a direct consequence of certain policies.
And if it's an incident unrelated to Uber's policies, I don't think it's relevant, personally. That's the point. That doesn't make it 'not bad', it just makes it 'not-relevant' for a tech-focused community. To filter out irrelevant topics is not censorship, it's focus.
Now you have said yourself the issue is not that Uber could have screened better, so does that mean indeed that it's an incident? That's the focal point of my issue here. I'm not for flagging or censorship. If I think it's relevant, I'm all for keeping it. If the story was about 1 person being raped and it was because of Uber policies, or an interesting story on gender relations in India, or the history of trust in taxi companies, I'd love to read that. Hell, if 0 people were raped but Uber policies were such that it could happen anytime soon, I'd want to read that, too. But this has none of that as of yet, it feels like an incident, therefore not relevant and therefore I don't care to see it.
As for the flagging, I've never flagged in my life and don't feel strongly this should have been flagged either. But you're implying there was an investigation that was censored. To me it feels as if there was no such investigation, but rather instead, a tabloid-like article on an incident with a rape by a freelance driver of a $40b company that everyone happens to be talking about. If it really is an incident, not systemic, not caused by Uber policies and just tabloid material, then it doesn't seem like the worst idea to down vote it to remove its visibility. I don't know exactly how HN works, apparently through flagging which is like a mega-downvote I guess? I just don't particularly see the problem.
> Whether or not this was truly due to a flaw in Uber's screening process or an unavoidable crime is certainly a valid question. All the more reason not to censor it.
So help me do answer it :) This thread hasn't been removed, has it? (I wonder by the way who flagged the other threads. One member said it was because the title used the word ra ping instead of ra pe, implying the others might've been auto-flagged, which would certainly be strange to me as you can't presuppose anything about the validity of the article from the word alone)
Earlier you said this rape incident "feels like an incident that doesn't justify a post on HN".
Now you are backtracking by saying "This thread hasn't been removed, has it?", welcoming discussion, and you "don't feel strongly this should have been flagged".
Glad you changed your position. It's the right one.
What? You keep ignoring my points and making a silly one in return.
I'm STILL saying it doesn't feel like this incident justifies a HN post. Why? Because it's an incident. And you ignore my points on that and just seem to want to win the point that this 'shouldn't have been flagged', while I've never flagged a thread in my life. You're arguing against someone else here, not me.
Feel free to go back and read my post and see if you disagree and think there's something systemic going on. (it's an interesting question. Look for example at the police brutality topic in the US, it's generally not interesting to most to hear about a white person getting shot, and a story like that without any interesting angle doesn't have a place on HN, because it tends to be an incident rather than when it happens against minorities, e.g. black minorities, as that is usually systemic, which is interesting and is justified imo. That's kind of how I look at this story, and I still feel it's an incident.)
Doesn't mean I'll flag it though, again please don't bring that up again. Tell that to someone who actually flagged this thing.
The point is that if it happens to tens of millions of people, it's systemic. If it's a single case, it's an incident UNLESS there is evidence that it's a direct consequence of certain policies.
And if it's an incident unrelated to Uber's policies, I don't think it's relevant, personally. That's the point. That doesn't make it 'not bad', it just makes it 'not-relevant' for a tech-focused community. To filter out irrelevant topics is not censorship, it's focus.
Now you have said yourself the issue is not that Uber could have screened better, so does that mean indeed that it's an incident? That's the focal point of my issue here. I'm not for flagging or censorship. If I think it's relevant, I'm all for keeping it. If the story was about 1 person being raped and it was because of Uber policies, or an interesting story on gender relations in India, or the history of trust in taxi companies, I'd love to read that. Hell, if 0 people were raped but Uber policies were such that it could happen anytime soon, I'd want to read that, too. But this has none of that as of yet, it feels like an incident, therefore not relevant and therefore I don't care to see it.
As for the flagging, I've never flagged in my life and don't feel strongly this should have been flagged either. But you're implying there was an investigation that was censored. To me it feels as if there was no such investigation, but rather instead, a tabloid-like article on an incident with a rape by a freelance driver of a $40b company that everyone happens to be talking about. If it really is an incident, not systemic, not caused by Uber policies and just tabloid material, then it doesn't seem like the worst idea to down vote it to remove its visibility. I don't know exactly how HN works, apparently through flagging which is like a mega-downvote I guess? I just don't particularly see the problem.
> Whether or not this was truly due to a flaw in Uber's screening process or an unavoidable crime is certainly a valid question. All the more reason not to censor it.
So help me do answer it :) This thread hasn't been removed, has it? (I wonder by the way who flagged the other threads. One member said it was because the title used the word ra ping instead of ra pe, implying the others might've been auto-flagged, which would certainly be strange to me as you can't presuppose anything about the validity of the article from the word alone)