Sam altman tweeted this thread to his 149,000 twitter followers some of which would have worked with Jason, and won't have HN accounts.

Before Sam edited his comment, his comment implied that Jason had bullied founders, changed offers and shared founders confidential information.

> We collect feedback from YC founders on investors (we have a giant database of this). If you mistreat founders, we don't invite you to Demo Day. This isn't permanent--if you stop mistreating founders (i.e. bullying them, changing offers, sharing their confidential info, etc etc etc) then we start inviting you again.

I talked to Sam about his original comments and he said they were not fair and he corrected them.

Sam and I are actually, and I know this is hard to believe, fond of each other. We started as Sequoia scouts together and have both had great success being startup advocates.

It's nice that the companies I work with took the time to uncloak/create accounts to defend me. It's touching actually.

> Rather obvious what is going on here - and it is pathetic

Because having people create fake accounts just to leave positive comments is far more likely than thousands of people being exposed to this thread via Sam and Jason's tweeter feeds?

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions with no data to back up your assertions.

For what it's worth, while I've never worked with Jason, I have met him once (briefly) and I have talked to many who have worked with him. I've only heard positive things. Everything being posted here are anecdotes from either one side or another; I wouldn't trust someone's anecdote to determine someone's character.

All but one of the accounts was created before Jason tweeted about it.

and i've been around here long enough to know that even when outsiders do link to threads you don't get 50%+ green comments without sockpuppets

> All but one of the accounts was created before Jason tweeted about it.

What about before Sam tweeted? What about any other outlets that linked to HN?

> and i've been around here long enough to know that even when outsiders do link to threads you don't get 50%+ green comments without sockpuppets

Sounds like, instead of relying on data, you already have your narrative set so it doesn't really matter what anyone says. Do you have data that shows this has happened in the past like you claim? If so, what are the correlations between those instances and this one? How do you control between fake accounts and accounts created due to an influx of traffic regarding a topic many are interested in?

The accounts actually don't look fake. I'm not really sure what's so obvious.

I responded to a bunch of the comments and included the URLs of the startups who came to my defense -- which is very touching to me.

... and because you should check out how awesome their startups are!

Yeah, I created a new account, WITH MY REAL NAME for this as I wanted to be super transparent. I didn't want to use a scrub account that I normally post under here. All of those except for one probably fall under the same situation.

It's not a case of malice, just transparency.

This account, is over a year old. I created "vincentc" because I've trended to prefer first name instead, but didn't realize what an issue a new account would pose.

Anyways, what I said was true. I went through his incubator, and Jason has been nothing but supportive. Echoing what others have already said, he provides brutally honest feedback, which we all need. At no time was it ever mean-spirited or derogatory, or any of the other claims being made.

Jason has been nothing but encouraging and relentlessly supportive.

I saw the tweet and wanted to offer my POV. I created a new account because I couldn't remember the password to my old account (redtricycle) and was responding on the fly. redtri = founder of red tricycle(not fake/anon). Two sides to every story (at least!) and people are entitled to hear all ...

Or is it just support because we feel it is due