[skrap]

There's a lot going on in these comments, but it's worth noticing the breach of trust which occurred. Person 2 is trying to uphold the tradition of trust and charity which is a large part of what makes HN as successful as it is. Person 1 can "see the pixels" and wants to call it out. Person 1 was correct and Person 2 was charitable but wrong, and of course that counts for something. But if you look beyond that fact for a moment, I think there was real damage to the community of trust within HN. The OP acted irresponsibly by posting the article at all. That he used the trust of the HN users to prove his point doesn't matter at all.

> I had a lot of fun doing this experiment. Some people will probably get mad at me for tricking people, but whatever.

OP even recognizes the externalized cost of their actions, "but whatever", as they say. What they did by posting fake content to prove a point was wrong, betrayed everyone's trust, and was completely against the spirit here. And as a community we could say that we don't support this behavior. I think that's a good idea.

[site-packages1]

This is a _very_ charitable interpretation of Person2's motivations. Person1 correctly called out something fairly bluntly, and the call out had (in hindsight, I didn't see the comment before this) a pretty good basis for the comment.

Person2 was very dismissive without even addressing the comment. That to me seems antithetical to "trying to uphold the tradition of trust and charity," though I'm pretty new here. I personally don't think a dismissive attitude and a snarky quip for no good reason is worth anything.

[skrap]

The point of my comment was to focus on the harm which the OP did by posting the faked content in the first place. And my comment explicitly says to forget about Person 1 and Person 2.

[site-packages1]

Person 1 and Person 2 are integral to the analysis. They can’t be forgotten since the entire thing is about them lol