Can you address the semantic intent of your use of the word only and what Dan said please: the substantive point to me is you implied only == specific == evidence of bias and as Dan said it is well established they down weight for more than one reason which implies != only which I think, personally you haven't adequately addressed. You're basically wrong.
You're not addressing the point. You said he only downweights for one reason. Plainly, he has declared consistency in downweighting for many reasons. No amount of self justification changes the fact you said he ONLY downweights for one reason, and that's factually incorrect.
What he did in this specific case? Different matter. What he does as a matter of both stated policy and declared intent and I would suggest, evidence is different. He downweights for a range of reasons.
Why can't you just accept that and say so? What's blocking you from acknowledging your own words are just incorrect?
>Why can't you just accept that and say so? What's blocking you from acknowledging your own words are just incorrect?
Very simple logic. He's in a position where he can lie. Conflict of interest. He's paid by the company who sponsors this news site. Why can't you get this simple logic through your head?
>You said he only downweights for one reason.
Please read my post. I said what I meant WAS THIS: The only thing Dang can say is that when he downweights posts he can only SAY that he does so in the interest of the HN community. That's it. Mainly the point is because this is ONLY what he can SAY (keyword) you can't trust what he says, because of a CONFLICT of INTEREST. Get it? Take note I capitalized some words for emphasis to help you understand exactly what I'm saying. The language I use is specific and exact.
>You're not addressing the point.
I am addressing the point. The point is I'm not wrong at all and I'm telling you why. That's really all you need to get through your head.
>What he did in this specific case? Different matter.
What he did in this specific case IS ENTIRELY the point. It is NOT a different matter. ANY thing off this point is off topic. My initial post is completely and only addressing the point. I think your mind is wandering from point to point not latching on the main topic.
>What he does as a matter of both stated policy and declared intent and I would suggest, evidence is different. He downweights for a range of reasons.
Your suggestion is noted. And I suggest there's a conflict of interest here. There.
> Why can't you get this simple logic through your head?
Everyone knows he's paid by YC and almost everyone is taking his decade long track record into consideration as an excellent moderator + that he literally didn't do anything wrong here. You're trying to defend your allegation and everyone else doesn't agree with you.
> That's really all you need to get through your head
