Can you speak to the concerns raised about Yodlee [1] in contrast to similar concerns raised about Jumpshot [2] which resulted in the entire company being shut down last week [3].
How much of Second Measure's business model depends upon the continued availability of Yodlee data?
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/478766-lawmakers-call-...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v744v9/senator-ron-wyden-...
[3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxejbb/avast-antivirus-is...
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22228715.
It's a question about a potential existential threat in the form of recent regulatory scrutiny.
Some of those grievances, accusations, and concerns are surely valid. But sometimes they're the one-sided productions of disgruntled internet commenters—I can tell you from long experience that there's a lot of that out there too. And it's often not easy to tell the difference.
What tools does an internet forum have to adjudicate such things? Mostly just thorough discussion and debate by the community. That may or may not bring out the whole story and a fair conclusion; even in the optimal context there's no guarantee that such a discussion will arrive at the truth or rise above the level of a mob piling on. But what's clear is that a "Who Is Hiring" thread is just a terrible context for that sort of cage match. Hence the rule that we just don't go there.
Why not just say what you mean, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then why doesn't the rule say that?
Better yet, go all the way and forbid replies entirely. That achieves the same stifling of conversation, in this one context where it's deemed "terrible", without the enforcement that can seem capricious and arbitrary (as you say yourself, "it's often not easy to tell the difference") and can needlessly shame an otherwise well-intentioned commenter.