You aren't going to get far with this community arguing that we should ban nytimes.com. What you (i.e. anyone who cares about this) should do instead is find more substantive, more interesting, and hopefully more neutral articles analyzing the same things, and submit them to HN instead. I can't say I've seen very many of these lately, but presumably some exist.
You guys are much too tendentious about this and it weakens your case. The reason nytimes.com isn't banned on HN is because it produces threads like these, which are obviously good HN material:
Yes, NYT is tendentious on certain topics in its own right, and in some of those cases, it would be good if HN had more neutral reports to discuss. But if users don't submit them, what can we do?
Whatever metric you use to deny certain sources, should be used on this one, but it's not. Especially now that it's proven that they are both ideologically & financially captured. There's no cause here, I am asking you to be consistent. You have changed policies in the past, but now that's not happening?
I thought I just answered this question? Let me try to clarify...
We don't ban domains that regularly produce good material for HN. We do ban domains that are primarily ideological and almost never produce good material for HN. The definition of "good material" is basically "gratifies intellectual curiosity", as mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
There are a lot of sites that are strongly political and don't produce any articles that support good HN threads (or only very rarely do). Those we ban, regardless of their political orientation. But if any of them started publishing articles about newly discovered Chopin pieces, or insects relying on sounds made by plants, we'd unban that site. The biggest thing HN needs is more good (for HN) articles.
I'm not sure what policies you're saying we changed in the past?
Spam stock tips work - for spammers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26 - Oct 2006
You aren't going to get far with this community arguing that we should ban nytimes.com. What you (i.e. anyone who cares about this) should do instead is find more substantive, more interesting, and hopefully more neutral articles analyzing the same things, and submit them to HN instead. I can't say I've seen very many of these lately, but presumably some exist.