zlacker

>>dang+(OP)
I'm a little skeptical of this.... What's the ulterior motive here? We all know SamA was very anti-trump, is this an alternative method to keep the new US political regime from affecting YC? It's almost a weird form of discussion censorship. Whose idea was this?

>>ProAm+51
It's amazing how quickly examples of the problem dang specifically mentioned have popped up, like this comment.

Assuming bad faith without evidence is a big part of the issue here.

>>ivraat+y1
Im not assuming bad faith, just said I was skeptical. YC is a business and they are very interested in making money. Since the CEO of YC was very outspoken against one political candidate and now there is a week long ban I was just curious. Ive always seem YC as very open to intelligent honest discussion, so a ban like this seemed odd to me. That's why I asked the question, I probably could have phrased it better.

>>ProAm+A2
> Im not assuming bad faith

You specifically asked "What's the ulterior motive here?" which implies you think there is an ulterior motive. An ulterior motive would be acting in bad faith, since it would by definition be different than the expressed motive, since the reasoning was clearly expressed above.

Presentation matters. Whether you meant it to be or not, your statement is somewhat inflammatory, for the reasons I just outlined. In my opinion, it's also a very good reason why the temporary ban is a good idea.

>>kbenso+o5
I don't believe bad faith as being the same as having ulterior motive, but we'd just be arguing semantics at that point. It'd be the same as assuming temporary ban = temporary censorship.