That may be true, but this is also the sole comment from this account, made to defend the ad policies of a company known to take veeeeeery large liberties with the data of it's userbase, both to enhance features and to sell ad targeting.
Like if it's HN's policy to not call things astroturfing, fine, I'll accept that. But if it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and posts in it's own defense for no apparent reason like a duck...
It doesn’t matter. One is still claiming astroturfing with nothing but circumstantial evidence. If you have actual evidence that this account is a troll, post it.
Regarding the “new account” argument: HN encourages throwaways. Maybe OP didn’t want to lose karma on their main account. Maybe they don’t want people knowing who he is? It doesn’t matter.
I never said we should believe him. Just that we shouldn’t claim astroturfing without evidence. We shouldn’t necessarily believe OP without evidence either.
Realistically, on a social site without additional evidence, the default assumption on the modern web should be that a given account is being compensated for what they're posting. An account's history might allow us to adjust that prior.
Like if it's HN's policy to not call things astroturfing, fine, I'll accept that. But if it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and posts in it's own defense for no apparent reason like a duck...