With all due respect there have been 2-3 HN posts in the last few months about YC and HN being biased towards Stripe. Surely it cannot be so much smoke without a fire.
Second, to the extent that the claims involve HN, (I'm being careful only to comment on facts I personally know about), they're definitely false [1]. So yes, for sure there can be that much fireless smoke.
[1] I haven't had a chance to respond properly about those claims yet. Normally I'd have done it by now, but I'm on my phone with intermittent access at the moment, so am a lot slower and don't have my usual tools. Edit: I finally got it out - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30070287.
I've never claimed to be impartial and never would (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). What I do claim is that (a) we try hard to be fair and to follow HN's principles, especially the one about intellectual curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) ; (b) we always answer questions truthfully, partly because it feels better that way and partly because it would be dumb not to (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...) ; and (c) we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved in a story (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). That, by the way, is the only reason why this imaginary riler-upper spent 11 hours on HN's front page today. We'd never allow that normally—it goes against everything the site is supposed to be for. But I dutifully gritted my teeth and bore it, because that's the principle, and because I'm not about to trade a global optimum for a local one (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), even though it sucks to periodically get slimed like this.
- The appearance of unfairness is arguably at least as important as actual fairness from a community perspective. If you're being fair, but no one thinks believes it, the community suffers as though it were true. During this story, people were openly questioning your motives (even though the original story was apparently not factual) because they perceived unfairness.
- Choosing not to engage on certain topics and leaving that to other people in no way prevents you from connecting and engaging with the community naturally. Not engaging throws cold water doubt (unfounded though they may be) before it has an opportunity to smolder.
- There are lots of new community members, who could easily get the wrong idea. They don't know you like many (like myself) who have seen how you interact with the community, and in whom you've built up a large reservoir of trust.
The role you play in this community is very special and incredibly important to me and many others. Thank you so much!
They aren't right, but I can understand the perspective.
How? I'm curious. If someone makes accusations that you know to be false, wouldn't your best defense be a comprehensive refutation?
What alternative do you see that would be more compelling?
I, for one, really appreciate this level of detail, because the most common alternative is to attack back mercilessly without evidence. This tactic being commonly employed by politicians the world over.
I think it makes more sense to focus on the much larger audience that's sincerely making up their mind, and give them good information with which to do it. Could I do that less defensively though? Absolutely. Not there yet.