Good PR is not doing the post yourself, but creating a post that is passable enough to be posted by a regular user on your behalf. Just because it is well done

Good PR is not doing the post yourself, but creating a post that is passable enough to be posted by a regular user on your behalf. Just because it is well done does not mean it has good value as news. Indeed, even if it's an ok read, it's giving a lot of attention to a company just because it has the money to attract said attention, no matter the quality of their service. Since the reader's time and energy is limited, it's taking the place of another possible read. In the same way, by allowing this to happen, this lets a company create a fantastic image of itself, that is independent from it's real quality, just because it has the budget to do it. Cumulatively, this can, after years, end up rewriting history, and lead even educated people to make altered judgements and decisions in the future. I'm not saying that as an anti-microsoft attack, I dislike the concept of such powerful PR in general, MS is just here a potential example for this. As an HN reader, I wish there would be a policy about this. But I have no idea what it would look like, or how one could enforce it. So maybe I'm just making a lot of noise for nothing.