Notice how nobody in that thread that is negative will give their name. They're all well aware that it may have consequences, they might even be fakes. If you anonymize the reports you take responsibility. This can turn in to libel quite rapidly, especially if it has a direct impact on someone being hired or not.

TC is a public forum and in spite of the 'Possibly due to TechCrunch commenters?' above I doubt that would hold water because skype execs have not solicited TC to be their vetting agency.

But if they were and the vetting agency would give a 'no go' on what is anonymous hearsay then it would quickly turn in to something ugly.

People praising him on the thread are anonymous too.

Does taking money to solicit feedback and return a report really make you a vetting agency? (assuming you're not actually saying "You shouldn't hire this guy").

I'm not disagreeing with you–I see the libel point. I just find it odd that people tread so lightly here, while at the same time I can fairly easily trash a business on Yelp/Craigslist/Angieslist/TechCrunch/Wherever with varying degrees of anonymity.

EDIT: By "here" I meant the HR/hiring space, not HN ... sorry for the confusion.

> I just find it odd that people tread so lightly here, while at the same time I can fairly easily trash a business on Yelp/Craigslist/Angieslist/TechCrunch/Wherever with varying degrees of anonymity.

The difference between Yelp/etc and HN is that on HN you have a very long lasting reputation, not just a throwaway anonymous comment on some article. And then there is the ban hammer to consider, I'm sure that puts the brakes on for some people.

My own HN username is tied very hard to my real life identity, and that goes for a very large number of people here.

re. your edit: Because HR is a minefield from a legal perspective.