Or simply saying "Hustler magazine founder...."

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.

The previous poster misunderstood your comment because "hustler" is also used to refer to a male prostitute. Therefore your post was "insufficiently sex-work-positive"...or something

Now you’ve misinterpreted me. I was under the assumption that Hustler is a widely known pornographic publication/production house and Larry Flynt a widely known free speech advocate as a defender of said business empire.

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.

You've made a point to read into anodyne comments to credulously fit your narrative of what HN users believe or don't believe?

Actually, eat a metaphorical detective. I obviously didn’t make a point to read anything into your comment. I mistook your meaning because I sincerely thought it was other than what you clarified. And not only apologized directly for the mistake but purposefully made an edit at the top of my comment to be clear I recognized my mistake and had no ill intent. You coming for a snipe after is unnecessary.

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.

The sibling comment to mine interpreted you correctly and I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.

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.

> about SV founders who are viewed as hustlers

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).

I mean, to be fair, the use of “hustler” in the SV way predates the use in pornography. The latter adopted the former, not the other way around. Even still I agree that at least in the US if you have any kind of interest in speech law, you should be familiar with Hustler/Flynt.

Being unfamiliar with Hustler implies a deficit in the history department?