It's possible you're reading too much into that comment. The GP may simply have been providing a PSA about where they have found useful information given that one potential source has been removed.

From HN community guidelines on reading into a comment:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Why? They're saying they have people they believe are reputable. Again, reading into that to assume the commenter intended to say the banned account was sending out bad information violates the community guidelines of "plausible interpretation." Is it plausible that the commenter merely meant "Hey, here's some reputable sources"? Seems possible to me.

If one store goes out of business and I say "Here are two store that I consider reputable for buying the same things", that really doesn't mean I think the original store was not reputable.

The comment does not at all read to me as justification for the ban one way or another. It is a simple statement that there are sources the commenter trusts on the topic, with a referral to them.

Twitter didn't suspend the account for not being reputable. They suspended the account for being part of a network that was artificially promoting tweets and content. You're arguing a point that Twitter never made

>"being part of a network that was artificially promoting tweets and content."

This is part of the reason why I detest Twitter's leadership. It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it. If someone tells me the same dozen or so twitter handles that always manage to chime in at the top of just about every trending social topic are authentic, I simply won't believe them. Why aren't these banned?

> It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it.

Well I can't disagree with that. It is endemic of Google, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, Apple etc.

When these companies deal with the sheer volume of users they have they hide behind rules that are judged via algorithm and are not able to be evaluated or appealed unless you get enough attention on social media.

It is yet another argument for the elimination of them. If they can't manage themselves then they shouldn't be running.

Bruh I'm just happy someone linked someone else at all. These are current events, moving targets... Squabbling in the comments like that is more of a destructive distraction than anything

Is it not demonstrative of my point that this person immediately hand waves away twitter banning this account then immediately suggests that you use two blue checkmarks instead?