He gave his own facebook stock to his own charity. If you've ever owned a corporation, you know just how cynical, contriving, and conceitful that move is.
So, it's rational to default on the belief that... after years of such behavior... his next move will be motivated by selfish gain (ego/control probablg) with potential deception. Also note that character assessment and source integrity ratings are standard practice of experienced journalists, police, and intelligence gathering. Example below in ratings section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_collection_mana...
Also, my brief reading of Charity link suggested it fails instantly if person talking is a con artist or habitual liar. Like Zuckerberg but Frank Abignale of Catch Me if You Can even better example. Or litany of PR people working for companies always getting caught doing devious things with cover stories. The Empirical, evidence-over-time model handles both the good and the bad while the Charity model effectively encourages people to act like sheep in front of hungry, intelligent wolves. So, Im strongly against it being part of the guidelines of any forum.
Now, I do get the concept and still thank you for the link. Ill think on it more in the near future as I can see room for self-improvement. I suggest a lightweight version of it where we try to assume a reasonable/charitable version of a comment by default then reply to that or ask clarification before slamming it. No charitable version if person, claim, or topic has a consistent meaning that's neutral or negagive. Probability applies then. Misinformation that's easily disproven by linked evidence, as I often deal with, would be example. Maybe combine this with "keep it civil, focus on claims, and no personal attacks" a la FreeBSD's Code of Conduct. Might make a nice compromise between charity principle and reality.
Just a few of my thoughts for the team's consideration. Just concerned that guideline could censor comments that need to be there while protecting subtle trolls or unreliable sources from quickly being dealt with. It was a good idea but just goes too far into idealism in that link. Especially for discussions on... the Internet. ;)
I'm more for a democratic guided way to spend money beneficial, than one rich person deciding what needs to be done with it.
We're likely going to add this principle to HN's site guidelines.
"Charity" was used as "Philanthropy" in the parent post.
When the dust clears, you'll have a harmonious web forum -- in which no information is exchanged.
HN's way of balancing this is to require that comments be civil and substantive. Adding the principle of charity is simply a clarification of what that means.
The 'principle of charity' is not primarily about ethics or tone. It's about intellectual substance. It simply says that people should respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of an argument (or comment or phenomenon). What reason could anyone have for insisting on reacting to a weaker interpretation than they need to? I can think of a few, but none apply to a site that wants civil, substantive discourse.
What's the probability they don't know this?
They're corralling the sheeple:
Get typing your sanitised comments. Engagement up.
Weasel Words are kind words.
Correct isn't politically correct.
Motives are always good. There're no bad people in utopia.
There is no marketing. Interviews aren't marketing. HN isn't marketing.
The time this will become a problem is the second the company accepts money from other people. Then I will join in picking up pitchforks.