BurntSushi was most definitely not banned; he removed his own account.

I don't understand why people lie so blatantly like this. Please stop.

[1]: https://twitter.com/burntsushi5/status/1399543042261061633

> I don't understand why people lie so blatantly like this.

Why assume malicious intent? Couldn't he just be wrong?

"lie" does indeed carry some connotation of bad intent, and I am totally fine casting that here. I show no quarter to falsehoods, especially today, and especially when they're clearly being used to support a narrative.

This isn't some easy to mix up thing. I went on public record saying why I left. And there was an entire discussion about it. There was never any confusion about why I left. If you're still going to say things that are untrue to push your own narrative, then I'm totally fine calling you out as a liar at that point. It's not even like they just got mixed up between "banning" and "leaving," they also went out of their way to make up some bullshit about why I got banned. There has never been any kind of issue of self-promotion between me and Lobsters, at least none that was ever communicated to me and none that I or anyone else ever publicly communicated.

If the OP wasn't a liar, then they're at best negligent.

And if my behavior is what speaks out to you as bad, then you don't understand Brandolini's law.

Misinformation. Noun. False or inaccurate information, especially that which is *deliberately intended to deceive*.

I stand by my statement.

> I went on public record saying why I left. And there was an entire discussion about it. There was never any confusion about why I left.

Which he clearly hasn't read. Not everybody lives online and not everybody is personally familiar with you and your situation. It certainly doesn't explain why you're inappropriately assuming malicious intent.

> If you're still going to say things that are untrue to push your own narrative

Where is he trying to push a narrative? I looked at his post history here and on Lobsters before posting. This is the first time he's ever mentioned it or brought it up.

> And if my behavior is what speaks out to you as bad

Yes. Even moreso now that you've explained. You could have corrected his statement without acting like the world's out to get you or that he intended you personal harm.

> Which he clearly hasn't read.

Wait... so you can know what they've read, but I can't know that they're a liar? Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

> You could have corrected his statement without acting like the world's out to get you or that he intended you personal harm.

Get off your high horse buddy. The HN guidelines don't mean you can't call a spade a spade. What was said was so blatantly false that it's reasonable to assume it's a lie IMO, and now you've started a shit fight because you didn't like that I took just a modicum of liberty.

Congrats in your successful troll. But I won't make that mistake with you again.

You are free to define words for yourself however you want, but "deliberately intended to deceive" is not a common requirement for "misinformation" AFAIK. e.g. it does not appear in e.g. Merriam-Webster or many other dictionaries; most just define it as "Information that is incorrect" or some variant thereof, which is also how I would use the word, neutral of any value judgement.

And even if it was, "especially" does not mean "exclusively". In my observation most "misinformation" is not spread deliberately; the root of it may be, but not the people who spread and amplify it.

Basically, you used my name to support a narrative that Lobsters moderation is too heavy handed. But I have actually thought that Lobsters moderation wasn't strict enough. I wanted more moderation, not less, in order to raise the level of discourse.