From HN guidelines:

> Off topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

So you’re incorrect. HN isn’t off bounds for all political posts, but yes, they do have to have an “interesting new phenomenon”.

The U.S. sanctioning a decades old technology collective is clearly new. Whether it’s “interesting” I can’t speak to because that’s subjective to every individual, but that’s where the useful voting system comes in.

> For the majority of organizations one can tell what they do in a few seconds

Have you ever opened the website of any B2B software/services provider? By your logic, they're all the most suspicious people on earth, because none of them seem to be able to explain what they actually do.

There's an "About" link on the top of the page and if you click it it fully explains what they do and for who in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

You're getting a negative response because ignoring that and implying that they're secretly doing sketchy things makes it look like you're doing bad faith criticism

Reason.com is political. EFF.org is political. Anti-ChatControl sites are political. Do you flag those, too? If not, why not?