Comment by tomhow

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?