611–620 of 663 posts
That tweet is three months old. No way YC bans someone over a three month old tweet (unless they only discovered the tweet recently, which I doubt). I'm betting there's more to this story.
oh yes. they ban founders all the time. myself included. https://twitter.com/ekadamer/status/1400956227501318146?s=21
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he didn't lie. Many clinics are opening up to first-come, first-served because vax rates are dropping and they still have inventory. Feels like drama?
Were they doing that in March, when the incident in question happened?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You are literally comparing things with ( in 1 post): China, covid, dictatorship, serial killers, censorship, educational creationism, biology in schools, ... Those are called examples. Examples in service of helping to illustrate a point that is still on topic. You on the other hand wanted to talk about things that were never remarked upon or even true. I never said anything about how dang should stop moderating an…
> Those are called examples. No. It's whataboutism.
Look nico, where do you live? [redacted]? I happen to live there to. Why don't we chat over the phone. Did I get your phone number right? [redacted].
Or how about we continue to chat where you live. I'll drop you a visit and we can hash out our arguments there. [redacted] is the city you live in? I can get there. I'll drop you a visit and we can continue talking :). Don't worry it's not like I'm going to kill you or anything.
You heard of ? We can grab a drink there or I can just show up where you live. Your move Nico.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You literally ignore the basic facts that this thread wasn't deleted/flagged. He didn't pin his comment as you claimed multiple times either. It's not blind faith, but good faith based on Dang's > decade long track record on HN as moderator.
He's probably not deleting or flagging anything because he's aware it will make him look biased. This is a common strategy. Dang picking and choosing only to censor the most insidious things remains an open possibility. Also, what decade long track record? You have a record of posts that were deleted or censored? That would be a track record. But guess what? none exists. That's a fact. All I'm saying is that a confli…
You're constantly making accusations without any proof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's not the reason and wouldn't be true. There's another aspect too: I try to avoid being a bloodless ghoul in communicating with this community. People here don't want stiff corporate pantomimes, and that suits me fine, because I would hate to do that; or rather I can't because my body would reject it. That's an old Willie Brown line btw.
Are you claiming you do not have a conflict of interest here?
The conflict of interest (I'm not sure that's the most precise term here, but I'll go with it) is obvious, everyone's aware of it, and it doesn't normally (nor should it) stop me from sharing information with the community. HN readers are curious, generally like more information rather than less, and are smart enough to make up their own minds. And although you can call it a conflict, actually just sharing what's happening is a way to build trust with readers.
The difference in this case was not any of that—it's just that it's not my call what YC does or doesn't publish about its internal affairs, so I don't get to share information like I normally would. I don't like that; my comfort zone is, like I said, to tell HN readers whatever relevant information I can and let them decide for themselves. That has worked well over the years and continues to. But other people have different jobs and need to make decisions from different perspectives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why can't you get this simple logic through your head? Everyone knows he's paid by YC and almost everyone is taking his decade long track record into consideration as an excellent moderator + that he literally didn't do anything wrong here. You're trying to defend your allegation and everyone else doesn't agree with you. > That's really all you need to get through your head Perhaps the problem isn't someone else :)
>Perhaps the problem isn't someone else Yeah the problem is you. Not someone else. >that he literally didn't do anything wrong here. What he did wrong is insert his opinion and possibly pin a comment and edit a title of a topic that has a conflict of interest. That is wrong wrong wrong. Put it this way. In a court of law he'd be thrown out.
You are literally blaming a moderator for doing his job. Lol
If you are so hateful against moderation here, you could try something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's not the reason and wouldn't be true. There's another aspect too: I try to avoid being a bloodless ghoul in communicating with this community. People here don't want stiff corporate pantomimes, and that suits me fine, because I would hate to do that; or rather I can't because my body would reject it. That's an old Willie Brown line btw.
As a moderator of YC’s forum, you have a conflict of interest. That’s an objective fact. Saying there is a conflict of interest is not saying that you actually feel conflicting motives. I’m not casting any doubt on that. The mere appearance of a conflict is sufficient, in typical circumstances where legal definitions are required. Recognizing that the (appearance of) a conflict of interest exists and respecting it wo…
What I don't respect so much is Twitter drama and misleading rhetoric. To the extent that readers care about this at all, they should get to hear both sides of the story so they could make up their minds for themselves. But it's not my call, so I don't get to go there this time.
More interestingly perhaps, I think it would be a big mistake, for community relations, to hide behind bureaucratic language about this stuff (e.g. "as there is a conflict of interest, I will not comment"). HN readers aren't used to that. They're used to getting the inside story and to feeling personally connected to the people who run HN and to some extent YC. To flip a switch and suddenly turn that off when something like this happens would send all the wrong signals. My commitment to people here is to tell them as much as I can about whatever they're curious to know, and to interact with them as a human, not as a corporate role. That's what I meant by "bloodless ghoul" - I apologize if that wasn't clear - my language maybe gets more colorful late at night.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it’s why YC doesn’t have the reputation it once did. Letting Sam bro up the institution wasn’t the best decision in hindsight as this incident demonstrates.
pg believes the Civil War wasn't actually about slavery ( http://www.paulgraham.com/marginal.html ), so I'm not sure that Sam actually made the place worse .
If we could say "The Civil War was about slavery" and be done with the subject, I'm pretty sure so many books, studies, and histories about the subject would not have been made.