It'll be amusing to watch you try to build an intellectually coherent narrative out of (a) insulting strangers for supposed conflicts of interest, as if it was possible to do that without directly questioning their integrity, and (b) openly suggesting that coercive force be used to shut down a forum that happens to host arguments you don't agree with.
(a) "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." "The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests."
It is reasonable to believe that a person discussing his employer on public forum creates a RISK that his posting decisions MAY be unduly influenced.
Stating that a conflict of interest exists doesn't question the integrity of the person per se. I am not sure why would you choose a COI definition that is easily disproven by Wikipedia.
(b) Simple. That is not what I said. "suggesting that coercive force to be used to shut down" != "[to] be not against some external entity or random event shutting down".
And finally, (c). You were the one going full ad hominem without addressing anything in my original argument.
I don't get your motivation, though. It is obvious that HN is skewed in UX/UI and in the discussion contents in the favor of YC and YC alumni. That's the point. What is your reason to be aggressive about that?
