[philipov]

To be honest, this reads less like an attempt to integrate anti-harassment measures and more like an attempt to completely destroy a business trying to offer them. It further solidifies Twitter management as complicit in aiding and abetting the harassers by using its capital to eliminate a threat from the market. After the speed with which Twitter went after the ICE employees list, the evidence is clear that Twitter only has a problem tackling harassment when it's against marginalized populations.

[dang]

That's a pretty extreme leap when virtually no information is available yet. The HN guidelines ask you to "assume good faith" for a reason: people are all too ready to take such charges as givens and then pile more on top of them. It's a behavior that harms the container here, and it's not hard to wait until actual evidence appears.

[philipov]

That's fair, I will suspend judgement until further evidence appears, but the well of beneficial doubt is running low. I think a long past history of suspicious behavior is a good reason to update our assumptions.

[dang]

I don't disagree. But the real reason for having an "assume good faith" rule is what it does to this community when people don't. Therefore it needs practicing even when it feels undeserved.

[tedivm]

Here's the whole guideline you're talking about-

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

It's talking about how we all talk to each other. I think it's main purpose is not to lessen criticisms for corporations so much as to keep the discussion constructive.

[pvg]

You're probably not going to win an argument with a moderator by explaining to them the subtle logical error in the interpretation and purpose of their own guidelines.

[cjbprime]

Yet now we're failing to assume good faith in our moderators, by assuming that they will fail to recognize a conflict of interest arising from questioning the extent and source of their authority, which they have reason to see maximized.

The parent comment actually seemed spot on to me. The rule is to assume good faith of your interlocutors. The parent failed to assume good faith of a billion dollar corporation. I think it's reasonable to push back against being asked to tone down the latter, while honoring the rule for the former.

[pvg]

the well of beneficial doubt is running low

That is a metaphor made with an industrial grade cement mixer.