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
Asking "what's the ulterior motive" is assuming bad faith. It is equivalent to accusing someone of lying.

>>burkam+r4
Not as much lying as having a hidden reason, and I think companies that who are very interested in profits more often than not have ulterior motives with the decisions they make. I wanted to bring it up for discussion, I find it very odd for HN to have a 'temporary ban' on a topic that is topically relevant and important to how the world works.

>>ProAm+Vf
I completely understand why you brought it up, I'm just trying to explain that you were and are still assuming bad faith.

From my perspective, this is not very odd because HN is not a general purpose message board. The guidelines have always outlined what is on and off topic, and politics has always been considered off topic. It seems like a very reasonable experiment.