[ineedasername]

His responses to these particulars are less relevant than his career of pushing ideas that have fueled the anarcho capitalist agenda where the following seems virtuous rather than destructive of equitable law and society:

If you follow the logic of his essays—especially ones like “How to Make Wealth,” “Do Things that Don’t Scale,” or “Hackers and Painters”—you end up in a world where:

• The best people ignore rules that slow them down.

• Regulation is often just cargo-cult bureaucracy.

• Wealth is proof of virtue, or at least utility. Wealth + the rest = do what you want if you think you’re right and can get away with it

• Institutions should get out of the way of smart individuals.

• And the market, not the government, should determine value.

[tomhow]

These are interpretations that can be argued and debated (it's not appropriate for me to engage in any such debate here). But there are also major disconnects and deeply hostile disputes between key YC figures and those working with the administration.

The point is, none of it has anything to do with the way we moderate HN – which of the conflicting cues would we follow?

HN has had more front-page-visible, heavily upvoted/discussed stories about DOGE than anything else this year, along with several others relating to the administration, with the overwhelming sentiment in the articles and comments being critical.

Dang has commented at length on the matter several times:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[ineedasername]

I think dang, or the agglomeration of people who fill that role, are pretty good in respect to this, responsible stewards of the active commenting space. and I’m not proposing conspiracy theories about them not being upfront or honest in what they have said: it’s much simpler than active suppression to simply tweak the automated criteria by which articles are allowed to rise or fall.

[tptacek]

'tomhow is part of that agglomeration, fwiw.