Is that even possible to do in an unbiased way?

I would think it’s not. I’ve also never once seen dang claim that the moderation team do their job without bias. Indeed, I suspect he’d even go as far as to say that the primary purpose of moderation is to promote a certain bias.

That said, it’s also very easy to see what HN’s intended bias is since the publish it; it’s explained in the “on-topic” and “off-topic” paragraphs at the top of the guidelines page.

I don’t think they’ve ever claimed to be unbiased. They want shorter headlines with less sensationalism. That’s a bias.

"Because some people are irresponsible, responsible people should be prohibited of taking risky actions responsibly."

It's the same with the prohibition of alcohol.

The impeachment has zero relation with this topic, you are using this space to drop in a political and highly controversial statement in order to try and gain visibility to your highly contentious POV. How is this not removed yet? Flagged.

Speak for yourself.

I, for one, agree strongly with the OP.

Kind of clickbait. It will just fly by and remotely probe the surface. "We’re not a life search mission. We’re a habitability mission".

It was opt-out without any warning in the browser for users.

They sneaked it in.

It's that simple.

The problem is being able to sue for something like defamation. At the extreme, like happens in Brazil, innocent people are sent to jail for criticizing politicians.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/rothbard-suits-defamation

That is true, but this is so much worse.

1) this is a college

2) it was about research, fundamental to the mission of higher education

3) it was fraud, not error

4) It was HARVARD, exalted bastion of elite colleges, the most prestigious university in the US

I get Harvard is always more about influence and an insiders club rather than any real academic work, but still ... So many heads should roll over this.

Law enforcement is also about going after whistleblowers, journalists, or, in most countries, just ordinary citizens the current people in power don't like, even if no crime was committed.

You seem to have misinterpreted my comment.

I was not making any moral judgement on people operating tor nodes.

I was simply stating that you are, in fact, hindering law enforcement if you set up a non-logging proxy for the purposes of hindering law enforcement.

Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to you to decide. Clearly many people think it's a good thing; good enough to go through the efforts of setting up a proxy.

Germany does not mandate that TOR end-node providers are expected to log their users. Saying that not logging someone who went through your end-node is intentionally hindering the police would be like accusing a shopkeeper of intentionally hindering the police because they didn't make of record of every person who entered their storefront.

Maybe.

I think it differs because tor is specifically created to protect against surveillance; both private surveillance and state surveillance (a.k.a. law enforcement).

If a shop was actively helping people avoid surveillance, I would expect them to actively assist law enforcement, too.

I find it perfectly reasonable to consider people who actively help a project which advertises on its website that it is being used to protect against state surveillance / law enforcement to be hindering law enforcement.

I have all the streaming platforms you can think of and still have resort to torrent for any movie older than the 80s it seems...

Shutting off nuclear to rely on gas from Russia was not seen as an extreme continental security risk. This is nothing...