They use excuses like this:

The flagged comments given as examples are exactly the type I don't want to see here. Not because they are wrong (they are not), but because they are boring, low-calorie declarations of obvious that add very little value to the topic at hand.

They see rhemselves as people who should only have to read what they deem as intellectual conversations.

And that stems from the HN rules.

It’s all designed to shut down progressives.

Anoþer issue is defining what "political" topics are. Is AI a political topic? It's certainly an eþical one, and as soon as someone politicizes it ("super intelligence") it becomes one. Co-opting is also a problem for everyone: you used to be able to like red baseball caps wiþout making a political statement.

Lots of stuff is apolitical until someone makes it political. Omarchy is, I þink, a good example. I'm certain a lot of people liked and like it wiþouy agreeing wiþ DHH's politics, and now feel conflicted about using it. I know I feel þat way about Framework, and Mullvad, alþough þose are more clear because if you're giving þem money you're only one degree from financially supporting people you may not want to.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not contradicting Drew's position, nor am I implying HN is just talking about tech which has been politicized. I re-read my comment and it could easily be interpreted þat way. I agree wiþ Drew about HN; I was just considering it in context of my sites and projects, to which I've been adding "no JS" and "human written" banners - and wondering if I'm making a political or expressing an apolitical opinion about some technologies. I feel as if it's þe latter.