I'm somewhat concerned with the level of discourse in these comments; there's frankly a _lot_ of, well, ignorant americans talking about the civics of a country they clearly know nothing about. Would there be any chance of having a short note in the top text to the effect of “please keep in mind when you comment that you're discussing a foreign country that, in spite of the cultural similarity, does not work the same way as the US does.”?
Perhaps it's too late for this particular submission, but something to keep in mind in the future.
> ignorant americans
You're crossing into nationalistic flamebait if not an outright slur with that. This is not ok on HN, regardless of nationality, so please don't.
Low-quality comments (especially generic tangents) are always a problem in threads on controversial topics. Trying to address that is one of the core moderation tasks on HN, and we're quite dedicated to it. But the question needs to be framed without putting down groups of others.
I greatly admire your work on hn, but I have to express some skepticism that hn has the background necessary to effectively moderate a contentious discussion about another country's systems.
Specifically, I feel like the cultural similarities has bred a sense of familiarity that leads to unjustified confidence in making and judging claims. My sense is that the US is much more legalistic/formal in its approach to governance, with very few (if prominent) aspects of “binding social contract”. Likewise, the political discourse is different, and the intrusion of “American-style politics” is discussed widely as something that needs to be stamped out.
The current top comment is making a “point” that is predicated on a misunderstanding of how laws are actually applied in Canada; the vast majority of the replies to that comment are discussing the point without any reference to that, with one or two replies down near the bottom trying to educate (below a comment repeating a separatist/right-wing “canada is broken” talking point!).
Again, I'm not claiming that you're not making a good-faith effort to moderate; I'm not questioning your dedication, I just don't think hn is equipped to have nuanced discussions about contentious topics centered on other countries, and the moderation policy should reflect that.
It's impossible for a large public forum to have nuanced, correct, cogent comments on any topic, let alone contentious ones. All internet dynamics point against that. We're just trying to muddle through and stave off death for a little longer (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Even that modest, melancholy goal consumes all the time and energy we have, so the bar can't go much higher—at least not very quickly.
This isn't just a problem of other people being wrong and ignorant. It has to do with human nature, which applies to all of us. If you consider a little bit what led you to post a nationalistic swipe when you felt frustrated, that should be clear enough. We're all on the path of slowly learning not to react this way, but the solution needs also to be a self thing and not just an other thing.
By the way, it's not uncommon for people arguing about Canadian topics to both be Canadian and both be misinterpreting the other as a foreigner/outsider/other. (I say Canada because that was the topic here. It applies to other populations as well of course.) Such misunderstandings are excruciating and I sometimes wish I could step in and point this out, but we'd never out people like that. (Not a comment on the current thread; I didn't check.)
I don't disagree, and I'm content to drop it, but I do want to repeat because I feel it might have been lost that my suggestion was “having a short note in the top text”, similar to what sometimes happens on other contentious political posts.
Cheers.