I genuinely do not understand what this person believes is happening here. The Guardian is part of some mass-conspiracy to attack the FDA in order to...achieve what? Prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful chemicals from being introduced into the food supply? What sort of mindset must you have to believe this is a bad thing?
No one benefits from PFAS being unregulated in food, other than stockholders, C-suites and the politicians who accept money from lobbyists that represent them.
Some random group files a petition, and the FDA should be sworn to follow whatever it says? That's nonsensical. The FDA is already working on this as per the link I sent. They already agree that PFAS in food would be bad and they are looking into it. Don't you think they should do studies to understand the scope of the problem, or should they just shoot first and ask questions later? The latter would be anti-science.
You're getting flagged (at least in part) because your comments are breaking the site guidelines. For example:
> You got tricked [...] You need to do deeper research and not get manipulated by the first article you read.
That crosses into personal attack and flamewar. Since you thought you were posting respectfully, I assume that is your intention, but there's a big gap here between intention and effect. The burden is on you, the commenter, to disambiguate this (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
When it comes to expressing a minority or contrarian view, there's a considerable greater burden. This may not be fair, but it's real, and it's a skill that needs to be learned. See here for past explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
Quite the opposite - I've been trying for years to help users with minority views get a fair hearing on this site. The reason they get flagged is because they tend to break the site guidelines, often very badly. I can understand the reasons for this and sympathize, but we can't exempt them from the rules when they do that.
Speaking of the site guidelines, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No, friend, I was pointing out that this criminal kleptocracy administration of pathetic self-dealing imbeciles is so indefensible that even its biggest supporters -- I mean, imagine still being gullible enough to think these clowns are on your side -- resort to these sorts of anonymous sneak attack comments. Hence the fresh new account to drop a little FUD.
And I mean, in isolation it might work. Sure, they're "studying the data" and making a concrete plan. Only in the face of the enormous environmental damage they're doing -- gestures broadly at everything -- it rings a bit untrue, and the most cynical takes need to get the most weighting. At this point it's clear it's all criminal delay tactics, almost certainly because the right bribes were paid.
