I unkilled this, for anti-ironic reasons. But as other users have correctly pointed out, these points are meaningless if they don't come with specific links. The minute you give people specific examples to look at, you'll see that they generate an entire spectrum of responses, from strong-agree (from the ones who like the examples) to strong-disagree (from the ones who dislike them). This reveals how hard, indeed impossible, it is to come up with a satisfying answer to this.<p>Speaking of irony, if you want some, consider this: the most even-handed policy, the most consistently applied, would actually produce an optimum of <i>dis</i>satisfaction—because by applying even-handed principles to all content, it would produce plenty of examples for everyone to dislike, and those are the data points that determine people's views about bias, skew, and censorship (see <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=comment" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...</a>).<p>More ironically still, the most even-handed and consistent policy would actually be perceived by nearly everyone with strong feelings as hopelessly biased and in favor of the other side (whichever that is, relative to the perceiver).<p>I'm not saying that we do moderation in the most even-handed way, nor that we do so with consistency—especially not the latter, because we don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here (<a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=likeliest%20by:dang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...</a>). But some sort of evenhandedness does follow, as a value, from HN's core principle of intellectual curiosity—since if you exclude things for ideological reasons, you're automatically not optimizing for intellectual interest. So we have to at least try to be evenhanded, and we do at least try.