Inside CECOT – 60 Minutes [video]

>>lawles+(OP)
There are other links here as well: https://www.404media.co/archivists-posted-the-60-minutes-cec...

>>pavel_+Y2
404media is shadowbanned from HN for nebulous reasons. The mods should really revisit this policy: they've been doing some great reporting recently.

>>tastyf+W3
A16z-backed Doublespeed hacked, revealing what its AI-generated accounts promote (404media.co)

  289 points by grahamlee 5 days ago | flag | past | 171 comments

so some slip through.

But: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=404media.co sure has a lot of [dead]

>>defros+la
Don't forget that the mods tried to remove the reference to a16z from the title on that one.

>>UncleM+Jd
I tried to make the title fit the guidelines and the character limit, then changed it when the community explained why it was important for A16Z to be in the title.

Why do people think we're motivated to “suppress” negative stories about A16Z? They've been criticized forever here and we've never had a problem with it. All we care about is whether a topic makes for an interesting discussion on HN.

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

>>tomhow+Zd1
And I believe that the mods thinking that a16z was the least critical part of the headline such that it could be cut for space reasons is a huge concern. I'm glad that you changed your mind. But the fact that it was needed worries me and the fact that you can't understand why people were upset is worse.

There doesn't need to be an explicit effort to protect vc firms for your blind spots to shape conversation on this website away from criticizing them.

>>UncleM+Sp1
This argument amounts to an assertion that an editorial judgement about a title that differs from what you consider is most important is axiomatically evidence that we either (a) consciously make decisions to benefit VCs, or (b) unconsciously make decisions that benefit VCs. It allows no room for any other explanations, such as (c) that these actions are of no consequence to VCs, and (d) that we are just focused on our job, which is to uphold the guidelines, keep discussions curious, and avoid repetitive flamewars.

It's noticeable in this subthread that the accusations rely so much on sweeping, unfalsifiable claims and presumptions about our incentives or blind spots, and Kafkaesque logic that allows no space for simple, benign explanations.

Meanwhile, nobody seems to have examined the core assumption; that a title on an HN discussion thread has any consequence or concern for a firm like A16Z. Can anyone explain, specifically, how title changes like this on HN would benefit an outside VC firm?

zlacker