5 ms·

I can attest to that as when you point of things like Google gets caught stealing IP from a MIT student they invited for an interview (a popular thread here on

I can attest to that as when you point of things like Google gets caught stealing IP from a MIT student they invited for an interview (a popular thread here on HN) it gets downvoted voraciously. Either its employees, hired guns and or something...

philwelch 7y ago
Or maybe that particular story didn't really stand on its merits. I never saw the thread, but from my perspective (which is increasingly skeptical of Google), any sort of "stealing IP from interview candidates" theory doesn't make much sense.
- paul7986 7y ago
  It did receive almost 2k upvotes on HN. Further She has emails from Google ATAP(one of their supposed R&D departments) in which they note they invalidated her patent after getting caught... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18566929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18566929
belltaco 7y ago
I have noticed this pattern over several years. A few of the times it trips the flamebait detector and gets buried. Negative stories about other big tech companies don't seem to have the same issue with staying up.
tzs 7y ago
I saw that happen to you when you pointed that out in the big Anthony Levandowski discussion a week ago--but I think a lot of that had to do with you posting essentially the same comment at three different places in the same thread. I don't think it started getting downvoted until then.
PeterStuer 7y ago
I have also had purely factual statement on companies downvoted in a way that defies any rational story.
dang 7y ago
You spammed an HN thread with these comments before, which amply explains why you were downvoted. We've been over this topic a gazillion times on this site: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... Astroturfing exists, but imagined projections of astroturfing are far more common, and whatever the effects of the former may be, the latter has an extremely degrading effect on discussion. In fact it eats up everything if you let it. We don't want that here. I've personally banned several accounts over the years for propagandizing for Google (for whatever reason—it's impossible to distinguish between a paid agent and an overzealous fan, nor does it particularly matter). But this has been rare, and we don't do it without evidence.
- paul7986 7y ago
  Are you saying I am not able to discuss this true story where it's relevant? In threads where people have discussions that hold Google in a negative light cause they choose to act that way and get caught? My real life story along with the MIT's student story in which there's clear evidence of Stealing IP further details more bad behavior by the big G! Is Hacker News not a place where freedom of speech is welcome? Speech that is helpful to other not well connected innovators who when invited by the big G read this and tell the big G no I'm not going to take that meeting! Overall I'm confused as to why you call my story and Jie Qi's story spam? Do you not think her story is true and or mine is? That is not helpful for other not well connected and or rich innovators?
  - dang 7y ago
    The issue is that your comment broke the site guidelines by insinuating astroturfing without evidence. That's the main thing you're not allowed to do here, as I explained, and have explained ad nauseum before (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). Separately, there was an issue with your copy-pasting the same comment about this story repeatedly in a previous thread. That is what I called spamming (not the actual story). Doing that is no doubt what led to your being downvoted, rather than manipulation as you implied above. In cases where the story is relevant, of course it's fine to discuss it. But I don't see that it's relevant here, and your history of bringing it up in ways that break the site guidelines suggest that the bar for relevance needs to be higher than how you've been drawing it. But the main point is that you can't make up sinister stories about why you got downvoted ("I can attest...") and post them here. Long experience has shown that nearly all such comments are baseless, and as I just said, they eat everything if you let them. Therefore we mustn't let them.

philwelch 7y ago

Or maybe that particular story didn't really stand on its merits. I never saw the thread, but from my perspective (which is increasingly skeptical of Google), any sort of "stealing IP from interview candidates" theory doesn't make much sense.

paul7986 7y ago
It did receive almost 2k upvotes on HN. Further She has emails from Google ATAP(one of their supposed R&D departments) in which they note they invalidated her patent after getting caught... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18566929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18566929

belltaco 7y ago

I have noticed this pattern over several years. A few of the times it trips the flamebait detector and gets buried. Negative stories about other big tech companies don't seem to have the same issue with staying up.

tzs 7y ago

I saw that happen to you when you pointed that out in the big Anthony Levandowski discussion a week ago--but I think a lot of that had to do with you posting essentially the same comment at three different places in the same thread. I don't think it started getting downvoted until then.

PeterStuer 7y ago

I have also had purely factual statement on companies downvoted in a way that defies any rational story.

dang 7y ago

You spammed an HN thread with these comments before, which amply explains why you were downvoted. We've been over this topic a gazillion times on this site: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... Astroturfing exists, but imagined projections of astroturfing are far more common, and whatever the effects of the former may be, the latter has an extremely degrading effect on discussion. In fact it eats up everything if you let it. We don't want that here. I've personally banned several accounts over the years for propagandizing for Google (for whatever reason—it's impossible to distinguish between a paid agent and an overzealous fan, nor does it particularly matter). But this has been rare, and we don't do it without evidence.

paul7986 7y ago
Are you saying I am not able to discuss this true story where it's relevant? In threads where people have discussions that hold Google in a negative light cause they choose to act that way and get caught? My real life story along with the MIT's student story in which there's clear evidence of Stealing IP further details more bad behavior by the big G! Is Hacker News not a place where freedom of speech is welcome? Speech that is helpful to other not well connected innovators who when invited by the big G read this and tell the big G no I'm not going to take that meeting! Overall I'm confused as to why you call my story and Jie Qi's story spam? Do you not think her story is true and or mine is? That is not helpful for other not well connected and or rich innovators?
- dang 7y ago
  The issue is that your comment broke the site guidelines by insinuating astroturfing without evidence. That's the main thing you're not allowed to do here, as I explained, and have explained ad nauseum before (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). Separately, there was an issue with your copy-pasting the same comment about this story repeatedly in a previous thread. That is what I called spamming (not the actual story). Doing that is no doubt what led to your being downvoted, rather than manipulation as you implied above. In cases where the story is relevant, of course it's fine to discuss it. But I don't see that it's relevant here, and your history of bringing it up in ways that break the site guidelines suggest that the bar for relevance needs to be higher than how you've been drawing it. But the main point is that you can't make up sinister stories about why you got downvoted ("I can attest...") and post them here. Long experience has shown that nearly all such comments are baseless, and as I just said, they eat everything if you let them. Therefore we mustn't let them.