2. The "slander" was supported by an anecdote. And this is a comment section -- opinionated statements will be found.
3. What might be closer to slander is the fantastic assumption that the other commenter is shilling for a short position in Facebook. That's a mind-boggling assumption to make on the flimsiest of evidence. Even setting aside that trying to promote your short in a random HN comment is laughable
4. You're curiously silent on your own bias, well noted by pantaloons
I think the idea that everyone at FB who doesn't leave immediately is a "mediocre sell-out" is very far from the truth, and contrary to my own experience. Thus I'm suspicious of people who claim such.
There's already enough people on HN that will type out a borderline vitriolic four point list of why anyone who defends FB is wrong.
Why don't you look at JumpCrisscross' post history? This isn't the only anti-FB article he's submitted. Or are you a bit biased here? :) He has even commented on FB's stock price and predicted it will go down more in the future.
My bias is that I think there's another side to the story.
You are so self-assured about your position that you immediately take the contrary assertion to be in _bad faith_? This seems silly to me, but perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think it's pretty reasonable to assume an investment banker isn't going to be much help to FB employees in finding a new job. Claiming that "Facebook will be known for having hired mediocre sell-outs a few years from now." is at best a baseless slander. How in the world is that not in bad faith?
Spreading misinformation to aid one's short position is a much worse case of bias, in my mind, than what I've said in defense of the company.