Posts that are critical of Musk do get flagged quite often in my observation, e.g. posts around various pieces of Twitter drama caused by Musk. That part is intentional by HN, as these posts tend to produce rather low quality discussions and in the end are almost always the same. I don't particularly like how this rule results in a kind of criticism shield for Musk and similar cases, but I understand why HN has it.

This case is different in my opinion and should not be flagged because it is about a new topic that I would consider interesting on its own. Of course it'll get bogged down a bit like all discussions with Musk as part of the topic. But by far not as bad as posts about Musk himself.

It was "suppressed" because it's malodorous garbage.

It's interesting that nobody here seems to refute any of the assertions and would rather hand-wave.

Why bother when the source has previously shown itself to be biased and unreliable? That's what happens when you pretend to be a journalist without applying journalistic standards: people will stop taking you seriously, and with good reason.

As an aside, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it's interesting how many comments in this thread read like they were written by ESG Hound him(?)self.

Funny, usually HN comments reply to factually incorrect articles with well informed rebuttals rather than just shouting them down and insulting everyone.

Those people tend to comment on substantive articles not written by people with a history of emotionally laden axe grinding.