It's directly called out in the guidelines - I'm not entirely sure what you're curious about.
Right up there at the top:
>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
"The JFK Assassination" as a discussion of politics would be immediately flagged. Your linked [1] search is almost entirely comments and not a topic of discussion, which you would've realized quickly had you clicked through any of the results.
That was just an example, and that is why I started saying that it will be interesting to study flagging of articles. I have been around HN since 2009 and the flagging has been increasing in the last year. Most probably because of international and national conflicts.
I browse new pretty frequently, I think what you're seeing is more nation state actors or just newbies flooding HN than any change in policy. The stuff getting flagged has always gotten flagged, there's just more of it. Any accusations of political bias feel pretty misguided unless you want to present some specific examples.
Kind of like with the Israel-Gaza conflict flare up, we'll probably get a containment thread sometime this week when discussion might be more civil and when the initial fog of information has cleared up.
Right up there at the top:
>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
"The JFK Assassination" as a discussion of politics would be immediately flagged. Your linked [1] search is almost entirely comments and not a topic of discussion, which you would've realized quickly had you clicked through any of the results.