Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

They aren't threatening with a crime, rather just revoking their tax-exempt status.

he might be intelligent, but he has negative rizz. the only person excited about Vance 2028 is Peter Thiel.

Other than routine moderation comments, my comments have all been focused on correcting falsehoods or misconceptions about HN moderation, including claims or insinuations about YC management’s explicit or implicit influence on HN moderation.

Can you point to a comment of mine where that's not the case? I'll happily have it pointed out so I can avoid it in future.

>I am not sure what Trump has to do with this particular conversation though.

Your original comment was about the change in tone, I'm giving what I think is the main reason. He spews hateful rhetoric and insults people constantly. Tens of millions voted for him to represent them in the highest position in the world.

>. It used to be more purposeful, useful and meaningful for me

I think the articles where you'll find the highest percentage of comments you'd dislike are obvious. Just don't click on them.

>The purpose is the help understand current state of play.

This is improved if the information is accurate right? Calling out those that might be lying helps.

Thanks for the comments.

Where we get it wrong, I'm happy for it to be pointed out so we can improve. That's always been the case with HN moderation, and it's what I like about the work. The community demands that we operate to a high standard, and is quick to call us out when we get things wrong. That's the way it should be.

Where it stops being OK is when people make false (or extrapolated-to-the-point-of-absurdity) claims about YC’s actions/intentions, and its influence on HN moderation (and thus HN’s integrity).

Where this happens, the least I can do is (a) provide some balancing context when claims/insinuations are made of, say, YC's leaders being in cahoots with the administration and HN moderators enabling it because it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it, and (b) ask people who accuse us of censorship to provide details of their claims so we can explain it or investigate further.

I know I'm not going to please or win credibility from everybody, especially those who seem motivated to portray HN moderation and YC management in the worst possible light.

But the problem is that if we let these claims/accusations sit there without any balancing context, people who are open-minded will read them and think they are accurate, then form a negative opinion of YC and HN, based on incomplete information or falsehoods.

I realised just how damaging this can be when I spent time around the YC offices in SF in the past month, for the first time in a few years, spending lots time with dang and in staff meetings and having casual chats with YC staff and partners and startup founders. I realised just how different the vibe and attitude is, and how different the orientation towards politics is, compared to how it is so often portrayed in HN comments.

I also saw how frustrated and dispirited dang is by being subjected to these accusations for so long. And it hit me that these kinds of comments have become so pervasive on HN for so long that even I – who has been behind the scenes at HN for years (but not in the office) – had started to believe them, and become disenchanted about YC. And only when I spent time in the office and in the meetings did I realise just how much of an inaccurate portrayal they are.

I don't for a moment think YC is perfect, and I have plenty of my own ideas about how it can be doing better. And it's still very much the case that HN is an independent arm of YC, and it's not the moderators' role to defend or advocate for YC management.

But I think it’s important that we can provide balancing context when assertions are made about HN moderation and YC's influence on our moderation practices.

(Edited 5th par to be less dismissive/accusatory.)