That really is an interesting issue. I've been noting a few more posts here on hacker news recently getting flagged for "personal attacks" that I, personally, would have interpreted as someone calling out nonsense, and that not calling them out was more offensive.
Regardless of whether he does or does not sound like a shill ... how do we extend this to things like:
- Pointing out Nimby's in SF housing markets?
- Calling someone a salesperson/marketer/advertiser (which I view as offensive...but is often highly-accurate/true)
- Pointing out the self-interest in boosters talking up tech/bitcoing/etc
Indeed, in many of these recent observances of "personal attacks", what I view as actually happening is silently assenting to the worldview of an original poster/article and protecting that worldview. Contrary opinions or valuations or interpretations of events are taken as "personal attacks", which can be really quite repugnant when, sometimes, the more morally questionable/civilised position is in fact that of protecting the right to point out that which probably should be attacked in any reasonable discussion/society in the first place: (say, saying Theranos looks like a bunch of scammers/grifters, various startups and SF culture looks eerily like the past practiecs of get-rich-quick-schemes and boosterism)...