Still not sure why "Powerful Person in Tech needs to take accountability and resign" qualifies as an ugly personal attack or a "denunciation".
In the tech world recently, there have been plenty of calls for, say, Sundar Pichai or Mark Zuckerberg to resign. And those have been featured on HN. What's the difference here? If you're a Powerful Person in Tech (or industry or politics), that's just part of the gig.
"It sucks to have haters, but every founder who now runs a huge company faced this for a long time."
In this case, the author cites facts about Berners-Lee and his performance at the W3C. Each one is supported by a link to evidence. I don't agree with the author's conclusion. But if this community is so "fragile" that it needs to bury fact-based arguments, wowsers.
Because the article vents gratuitous personal bile alongside its factual claims and links. That brings out the worst in people, including here. See my point about protecting the container above.
We don't want the online callout/shaming culture on HN. If the facts in the article are important, someone else will write a factual article that doesn't have a side channel of putdowns and snark. Then we can have a thread based on that article instead.
I suppose I should add that I have no opinion about Tim's role in web governance, only about Hacker News.
In the tech world recently, there have been plenty of calls for, say, Sundar Pichai or Mark Zuckerberg to resign. And those have been featured on HN. What's the difference here? If you're a Powerful Person in Tech (or industry or politics), that's just part of the gig.
"It sucks to have haters, but every founder who now runs a huge company faced this for a long time."
https://blog.samaltman.com/dont-read-the-comments
In this case, the author cites facts about Berners-Lee and his performance at the W3C. Each one is supported by a link to evidence. I don't agree with the author's conclusion. But if this community is so "fragile" that it needs to bury fact-based arguments, wowsers.