[itsaidpens]

The data they received is a competitive advantage and they are not under any obligation to publish it. You don't need to, or are allowed to, extend your demands of peer-reviewed academia to modern online journalism. Stop whining, and address the claims of the article.

[dang]

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and posting unsubstantive comments, and ignoring our requests to stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Veen]

But surely without the original data, it's impossible to judge the accuracy of the report. How can one address the claims of the article without any idea whether its conclusions are justified? People have a justified skepticism when it comes to online reporting: it is not unusual for media outlets to take a skewed, partial, or plain incorrect view of a piece of research.

[chrisseaton]

> Stop whining, and address the claims of the article.

How can you possibly do that when you can't see the raw data and methodology yourself?

[fuzz4lyfe]

This is why they call it fake news.

[itsaidpens]

I just hate that pedantic comments like the original poster are the most upvoted on HN.

The most upvoted comment on most articles isn't addressing the topic; it's some sort of ridiculous analysis or criticism of process, or an embedded piece of javascript, or whatever.

[chongli]

I happen to appreciate this style of comment on HN. We live in a frenzy of sensationalism. Why can't we have a devil's advocate to remind us of the most common, basic mistakes? It's like a compiler that catches null-pointer errors for us.