[dang]

The problem here isn't that such things don't exist (no doubt they do) but that readers frequently confuse that with what feels like it simply has to be true based on the strength of their pre-existing opinion.

The usual path from "I don't like X" to "X is objectively false" to "no one would ever X in good faith" to "How much did they pay you for X, asshole" (not that you said that, but it's the flamewar end-state) never actually consults with reality. Since substantive discussion depends on looking beyond our pre-existing opinions, this is a problem for substantive discussion. Worse, it feels like being a champion of truth, so a lot of intense energy flows into it, so flamey passion goes up as substance goes down—a perilous combo.

I don't know what a full solution would look like, but at a minimum, HN comments on such issues—if they're to be good HN comments—need to show some sign of breaking out of that self-referential cycle. That's why we tell users that they're not allowed to accuse others of astroturfing or shillage without evidence, and always add "an opposing view is not evidence".

[ryandrake]

Is it even possible to have a high quality discussion of an article that itself is based on speculation from unnamed sources? This content could easily have been automatically generated by a bot, for all we know.

I don't know if this is a submarine article--it's impossible to know for sure, of course. It really, really reads like one though, and if pointing that out is unacceptable, then feel free to detach my comment and mark it as off-topic. I won't be offended.