I’m curious what benefit you think publishing the comment as a blog post would provide over the existent HN comment (which also has its own URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32855106). Possibly better SEO?
2. Why write at all: consensus drives policy change, and information drives consensus. Writing, of any length, assembles information, bundles it into an argument, and (if the argument lands) becomes a 'capsule' around which consensus can form.
1. Why long form: room for nuance and research. Long form can include different perspectives (including stripe's -- perhaps they have a reason for these practices). It can address questions like 'what % of the industry behaves this way, what are the downsides to the banks' approach'. The interview + editing process can tease out anecdotes that sharpen the argument, or uncover new aspects of the problem.
This part is selfish, but for the writer, long form lets you improve your own knowledge of the topic, and your ability to make arguments around it.
I've never thought about this, but now that you've pointed it out, I'm realizing this is genuinely a fantastic feature.
Sounds like yet another of the many perks of the spartan design here. All substance, with just a hint of (cascading) style.
A link to an HN thread is opaque, uninteresting, and context-less.
With, half of the blogs that I liked I can't remember the name of the blog, it's probably either been dropped from search engine indexes for being older than a year or two or pushed to the 10th page by better SEO, or the site has simply vanished.
A blog post also feels more trustworthy than a random social media site comment.
Shocking, I know.