This. There's been so much talk about curation/deletion of posts lately. Letting the algorithm do it's job is the only way to determine what's HN worthy in my view.
There is value in curating HN. People come to HN because it has a reasonably high signal to noise ratio in a certain realm. Highly charged topics tend to drive upvotes, even if it's just a 'like' or a, 'yeah, that's important, I'll up-vote it'. I didn't really start visiting HN for politics or shocking stories; those tend to disproportionately draw upvotes. I'm not in favor of downmodding non-tech articles, but there's something to be said for those who do.
There are more important things in the world than Bitcoin, but I'm happy to see a bitcoin article, perhaps two, on the front page anytime something interesting is happening.
What's worse, as I understand the algorithm's explanation here previously, flagging stories that are much upvoted counts against the flagger. So if the attempt to flag it off fails, those who tried will be penalized.
Disclaimer: I have no idea if that explanation is true. But if so, then you don't want to be the kid with his finger in the dike.
The difference here might be that people who own bitcoin have a financial interest in keeping interest in bitcoin up, so they form a kind of implicit voting cartel, regardless of the real interestingness of the items?
