I see your reasoning but I disagree. HN articles don’t need to be unbiased. The reason being, if you want a more neutral take, just take a look at the HN comments.
HN submissions are usually primary sources, and the HN comments are where you have the discussion. Sometimes even the top voted comment is just a summary of the actual submission, but rephrased to be less biased or more clear. If HN can’t point out the buried lede or explanation and get it upvoted then there’s a larger problem, but in practice I don’t find this to be the case (though maybe I’m wrong).
Does the article provide anything which the HN comment section wouldn’t?
For sure HN articles don't need to be unbiased, but corporate press releases are particularly soggy and misleading. I'm sure there are exceptions but boy are they rare, especially as company size grows.
HN submissions are usually primary sources, and the HN comments are where you have the discussion. Sometimes even the top voted comment is just a summary of the actual submission, but rephrased to be less biased or more clear. If HN can’t point out the buried lede or explanation and get it upvoted then there’s a larger problem, but in practice I don’t find this to be the case (though maybe I’m wrong).
Does the article provide anything which the HN comment section wouldn’t?