Yes, starting a flamewar about abortion is a big generic tangent, and throwing in flamebait like "Thanks Apple!" makes this particularly clear.
"Generic" in this context has to do with replacing a specific topic with a larger, more general one that it perhaps has some connection to. The problem from an HN point of view is that it makes discussion less interesting and more flame-prone. The generic topics drown out the smaller ones the way a black hole will suck in everything that comes too close (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
That doesn't mean the larger topic isn't important. Most probably it is very important, far more than the more specific topic is. That's not what HN is optimizing for, though (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Trying to stay focused on the specific rather than the generic, and especially the inflammatory generic, is a big part of keeping HN intact for its particular purpose. Otherwise it would quickly become purely a current affairs site, which it's not.
Dang I'm pretty disappointed by this comment and the fact that you flagged the parent comment. I agree "Thanks Apple!" doesn't add anything to the comment, but the rest of the comment (while touching on a divisive issue) is an important consideration for female tech workers (and male tech workers with wives/daughters/etc).
Losing the right to bodily autonomy is just as important to consider as potential tradeoffs regarding taxes. Yes, abortion restrictions are a contentious issue, but thats because they have material impacts on women's lives. I understand you dont want a flamewar but it seems wrong to dismiss comments raising legitimate concerns rather than inappropriate or flame-prone comments made in response.
This is one of the most prominent ideological faultlines that exists. There can't be many HN readers who are unaware of where their interests lie on this question—most likely there are zero. So I don't buy the public interest argument here; I think this thread is just the usual ideological/political foofarah, and on that the HN standard is clear: it's not what this site is for. If people really wanted to factually inform one another in a helpful way, they would post entirely different comments from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020465. As I already said, it's not a borderline call.
Here's another way of looking at it, in case helpful: we don't want anything predictable on HN. The rhetoric that people resort to when an issue like this comes up is fierce, repetitive, and predictable. That makes sense—if you're fighting for a cause you feel passionately about, repeating the same points as intensely as possible is what you do. But all of that is off topic on this site. There are plenty of other places to post that way.
Edit: I know how strong the temptation is to read something like this and think that the mods are taking the wrong position* on (in this case) abortion rights, and then get super mad about it. But I'm not saying anything about abortion rights (or California vs. Texas) in the slightest. I'm just trying to do the pedestrian moderation job I always do.
HN is a site for intellectual curiosity. Predictability cuts directly against that. What do you think we should do—not be a site for intellectual curiosity anymore?
There's been a tremendous shift in U.S. abortion, reproductive, and effectively general healthcare since the Dobbs decision in 2022, and Texas specifically has enacted some of the strictest and most vindictive state laws and policies, all of which would and should weigh heavily on the minds of anyone affected by Apple's decision here. Raising that point is absolutely on-topic in this discussion.
I'll allow that the "Thanks, Apple" wasn't strictly necessary, but even that seems within bounds given the circumstances and story.
If you'd like some guidelines here, I'd suggest that political considerations which impact on a story, particularly where those considerations have recently changed or are in flux (both of which apply here) should be permitted.
Totalitarian, repressive, and authoritarian governments and governance specifically operate on the very sort of generic, hot-button, emotionally-loaded issues and matters which HN typically eschews. Where those topics are not materially related to the story at hand I think that they can be reasonably admonished, particularly if the context and tone are inflammatory. In this case the consideration and its significance are material and relevant, even if Chron's own story omitted the consideration (a conspicuous omission itself).
HN's policy puts an extreme onus on those who call out repression, and is effectively a form of tone-policing. I've called this out in the past, and pointed out where you've acknowledged a comenter's stress in response, as here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37372792>
NB: much as I disagree with Dang's rationale here, HN mods almost never flag or remove comments, HN readers do. Mod actions typically show as "deleted" AFAIU (something I've had explained to me repeatedly by dang but cannot keep straight).
That said: HN's policy of strongly deprecating discussions of political hot potatoes does mean that HN has a de facto status quo bias, which is problematic in general and in this case specifically, as the issue raised in the flagged comment upstream is assuredly material for some Apple employees objecting to Apple's ultimatum.
[deleted] means the author of the post deleted it or asked us to delete it for them. The mods never do that without a request from the author (and usually not if the post has replies).
Mods almost never flag submissions but we do sometimes flag comments.
