[SpicyLemonZest]

The underlying idea I think you're missing is that personnel disputes just shouldn't be litigated through the media. There's no reliable information that can be gained and no productive discussion that can be had; the only possible outcome is to feed our confirmation biases and provide a platform to get mad.

For example, you mention:

> Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes?

But lots of people went to the mat for Gebru and Mitchell! And many more were willing to provide an assumption of good faith without necessarily taking their side. You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people. The article has tricked you into getting angry at phantoms and guesswork.

[cma]

> You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people.

Can you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Should you have to?

[SpicyLemonZest]

Well, I’m not sure what “have to” means. If I got a Washington Post article published about how suchandsuch person made a HN comment I don’t like, I would call that a clear case of harassment, no matter how much proof I had that the comment was wrong.

[cma]

So the law should be Washington Post has a criminal-trial style burden of proof for articles?