So from what I can tell, if someone writes an article about an employee of a company, people can say whatever they like in the comment section - anecdotes as colleagues, stories of similar environments, a mix of facts and claims. The article in question may be mostly heresy, and we've seen in the past this happen with the likes of Bezos, or very public people within our field like Stallman, or founders with questionable morals (see the latest AI controversies, or ads, or hacking, or regulations)..
But as soon as we specifically name someone in the comments, it's considered a witch-hunt. I think this is only true the first time it happens, or prior to them being targeted outside of this community.
Once someone writes a blog post with at least some facts on the subject, or the mainstream media writes about them - suddenly they're fair-game.
dang, we know this isn't going to get any easier to moderate. And I think writing broad, sweeping rules around this won't work. However, could you possibly write a post about it? You've expanded in the comments section in response to my own failure to live up to these standards (sorry again!), which I think was a good amount of information.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23306743
I think it could be good for some community self-reflection, and to see where the line of discourse vs gossip sits today.
Keep in mind that the word "lie" is strong medicine. It implies not only that someone said something untrue but that they deliberately intended to deceive.