Edit: your interpretation was right! And I’m glad for that.

I immediately got it, but I know who Larry Flynt was. The technical writer in me approves of your observation, though! "Hustler founder" would be a rather odd phrase to use to describe a founder who hustles -- you'd be more likely to say "hustler and founder" or "hustler-founder" or "hustling founder" -- but when there's any possibility for confusion, it's best to be (ahem) explicit.

I assumed (wrongly) that the objection to Hustler being in the title was a blanket rejection of sex work as a part of the general social contract worth discussing at all. But I assumed that based on very similar views widely expressed here, and a misunderstanding of very specific wording.

Believe me I don’t expect HN to ever be sufficiently pro sex worker. But I’ve seen enough anti that I’ve made a point to push back some when I can.

I wasn’t as charitable in my interpretation as I could have been, but honestly I had no idea Hustler isn’t such a common name that there would be any ambiguity. You could take a charitable interpretation in turn and recognize that I sincerely thought you were upset by the prominence of that publication/brand being in the title and see where the rest of my response follows from that.

For what it’s worth where I was going was all as explicit as I could make it, and based on a perception that you were reacting negatively to an article openly discussing a sex work publication. It’s been a predictable response to articles I’ve seen here lately on sex work topics and I misunderstood your comment as part of that general reaction.

Sorry again, and I appreciate your productive clarification.

Well this is likely an age thing. And to be honest, in my 10 years reading HN, the use of "hustler" to describe a Silicon Valley founder on the front page (and second) is pretty thin on the ground. There is no ambiguity unless you're a bit deficit in the history department (which is not our problem).