Our area of disagreement, from my perspective, seems to be your emphasis on "assume good faith", whereas mine is on "strongest plausible interpretation". To which I would point out, with the context of the account's past posting history, the assumption of good faith is no longer the strongest plausible interpretation. Doubly so in the context of a comment thread specifically about/containing discussion of bad faith actions and hostile workplace environment stemming from said company.
Now don't get me wrong, I think it's possible for two people to reasonably disagree over this.
But I think that's it's also reasonable to point out that in an attempt to stop discussion devolving to personal attacks under such an interpretation of essentially ahistorical accounts/context, you raise the bias and de-evolution of the comments on HN to biasing towards marketing, boosters, bots, astroturfers, etc.
Otherwise we end up with the sort of personal sniping that simply drives people off the site, and that's neither fair nor in HN's interests. We want people to feel free to comment here about their work or workplace, because those are going to be among the things they know the most about.
Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines? They cover this kind of thing:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html