The amount of gleeful sarcasm in this thread is indicative of how incredibly divisive identity politics are even in places as relatively thoughtful as HN. It's

The amount of gleeful sarcasm in this thread is indicative of how incredibly divisive identity politics are even in places as relatively thoughtful as HN. It's a blanket accusation of political bias that is, itself, politically biased. The implication is that if somebody criticizes something an apparently left-wing entity does, they couldn't possible criticize something politically reversed, or vice versa, or the inverse: If somebody doesn't criticize something an apparently left-wing entity does, they couldn't possible fail to criticize something politically reversed. Further, in any politically opposite cases where opinions do differ, there is a blanket insistence that the two cases can only be treated identically, even if the other inevitable differences between the two cases make it reasonable to treat them differently. It's perfectly possible to rationally think it's reasonable to ban Democrat A or Republican A for some infraction, but at the same time that it is unreasonable to ban Democrat B or Republican B for some other infraction. It's also perfectly possible to come to the conclusion that the platform did act with bias across the two cases, without necessitating hypocrisy to show support for one of the cases. The subject of the discussion could be about the nature of the separate cases, whether each was reasonable, and, completely separately, whether there was evidence of bias handling the two cases. But no - all that seems to matter is that at some point person A was banned and there was any support for it, and at a later point person B of opposite political identity was banned and there was any opposition to it, and, regardless of what those two people even did, that somehow means that everybody is a hypocrite. Edit: And yes, the article's author is also participating in a similar fallacy.