>What's with all the effort to discredit this source?

If you don't think FB would organize a pro-FB shill campaign, you haven't been paying attention.

The tell is the ad hominum "not a real whistleblower"/"has a PR team" (as if FB doesn't) attacks without any corresponding claims (much less any evidence) that the information is in any way incorrect.

It's a rhetorical question. But thanks for answering it anyway, I do not disagree.

Fair enough on it being rhetorical; FWIW, I didn't mean to single out 'you' - I should have phrased it "If anyone doesn't think.../they haven't been..."

I'll add that it's not necessary for a "shill campaign" to "win" the argument, merely to add enough doubt that a consensus is not reached. Manufacturing doubt is a standard tactic (1)

Or failing that, one could make the comments such a shit-show that HN decides to flag the whole story off the front page, as is their right.

You'll have to make up your own mind as to if that's happening today and on other days, as specific accusations are frowned upon in the site terms (2)

1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/10/flicc/

2)

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html