First, a couple of claims of fact to correct: - Reddit, HN, X/Twitter, Instagram, plenty of other sites have no bans on the kind of usage of multiple accounts

First, a couple of claims of fact to correct: - Reddit, HN, X/Twitter, Instagram, plenty of other sites have no bans on the kind of usage of multiple accounts that the Reddit founders were doing. Plenty of people have multiple accounts for all kinds of different purposes and nobody considers it wrong. The kind of sockpuppeting/astroturfing/self-posting/ringvoting that is banned on social sites is very different, and banned for very different reasons, vs. the early Reddit conduct. - 'In what universe is that "no goverment has expressed concern" when they went full end of privacy over it?' - "...over it" is a complete falsehood and another sign you're on weak ground. Some governments have proposed identity requirements on social media platforms but for reasons that have nothing to do with anything the Reddit founders did for a few weeks in 2005. - "it is wrong entirely based on the fact its deceitful. And lies are inherently wrong" - As I wrote elsewhere, we all accept that mistruths can be benign, beneficial or funny in some circumstances; white lies, pranks, jokes, stunts, hacks. It all comes back to who was harmed, and you still can't name a case of someone who was harmed by what Reddit did, you've only suggested hypotheticals and inferences. I've certainly spent enough time in this discussion, and I know it's a bad look on HN to perpetuate tit-for-tat arguments, so I'm certainly out. When I engage in a lengthy discussion like this, which I don't do often, it's to try and figure out what I'm missing about a topic - i.e., what has someone thought of about this that I haven't thought of? What I see in some of your comments is at least borderline fulmination, which is in breach of the HN guidelines. I also see in this and other of your comments, as well as those from others taking the same position in the subthread, several cases of the beg-the-question fallacy: that is, trying to prove that this act was something egregious by assuming it was egregious, and using words that necessarily characterise it as the worst kind of transgression, when the severity of the transgression is the very thing that's in question. The right way to discuss this topic is to explore exactly what kind of deception was committed and who was actually harmed by it, but I'm just seeing repeated insistences that we accept that this was a terrible act, without any earnest effort to demonstrate it.