[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]

I think dang explained it pretty clearly in the comment. It is bad for the forum when, given some very limited set of facts, you offer the most heated, ragefest pile-on inducing explanation or theory. It doesn't require some talmudic reading of the guidelines which are, after all, guidelines and not every single thing is explicitly spelled out. 'Avoid taking discussions into flamey or ragey directions' is advice the mods dole out to some person or another nearly daily.