[dragonwriter]

Musk has gotten quite a bit of flack (in general and on HN specifically) about it; now, unlike Kalanick, he defended the decision and stick with it rather than resigning on the eve of the first meeting.

Now, Kalanick actually managed to draw more attention by creating additional news by his dramatic resignation, but as far as criticism of the initial decision, I don't see any evidence he was treated differently than Musk; often, the two were mentioned together in both news articles and criticism.

[CamperBob2]

OK, so let's say Musk and Kalanick have received a similar amount of flak for associating themselves with the Trump committee. First, that's not even remotely true (and no, I can't be bothered to perform a statistical survey, at least not for free); and second, it would obviously be counterproductive for qualified industry figures to turn down an opportunity to make their voices heard in government, regardless of any other controversies the President may be embroiled in at the moment. Criticizing people merely for taking an interest in their government's policymaking process is absurd.

So. What about the other 18 members? Why isn't anyone on HN or elsewhere attacking them?

[dragonwriter]

> What about the other 18 members?

There are 17 other members.

> Why isn't anyone on HN or elsewhere attacking them?

HN specifically has a tech-industry-startup focus, plus the other people are exactly the kind of people you'd expect to be supporting an authoritarian corporate plutocrat. Their role is a dog-bites-rabbit story.