This is unauthenticated, unverified, anonymous. There is an enormous difference between journalism and this.

Anyone reading this thread right now can post any random text to a website and claim to be a former employee. Anyone can make up anything at all. Are all of those content that should be on the homepage? They would be up voted.

Credibility is important when making accusations, accountability is important. There is zero here. There are processes for actual whistle-blowers. This isn't it. It's worse than "yellow journalism". And it's concerning people don't see the difference.

You can click "hide" and move on. Everyone else who wants to chat about it can stay on the thread

Don't censor my feed with your preferences.

Anonymity should be extolled and protected.

What sort of free speech would we have on this site if people could read stuff that I don’t like? None at all

> Also "shouldn't be on the HN homepage" is not really a pertinent comment, seeing as it is on the front page, meaning others (via the algorithm) do think it is a worthy submission.

I would argue that, as in a lot of cases with articles that appear on the FP, this one may be getting upvoted as folks are around for the discussion, not necessarily the featured article, as it's just "another clue" as to what the heck is going on with this circus show.

That may very well be the case, but even then there's no reason to disallow it from the front page necessarily. Let readers make their own judgement about whether it's genuine. Heck, that's an interesting discussion in and of itself.

> Let readers make their own judgement about whether it's genuine.

Looks like they have -- it's been flagged (but not by me -- I'm not informed enough about this to make that kind of call).

I noticed, but sadly we can't vouch for submissions, which means only the `flag`s count, so it's not exactly a fair fight

I think vouching only becomes available when it's [dead], not merely when [flagged].