As a matter of good policy they wouldn't publicly denounce anyone that was associated with YC.

simplest explanation is most likely the one nearest the truth

ironically, that’s too simplistic. Simplicity is only virtuous in an explanation if the explanation itself is not contradicted by reality. Unbound from reality, simplicity is dangerously seductive because it’s easy and wrong.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

- H.L. Mencken

very glib (though true) - but do you have any evidence in this case as to what reality is? If so, could you please explain how the given statement is "contradicted by reality"?

I was just addressing the notion that the simplicity of the conspiracy theory was evidence of its veracity - it is not. If you're asking if I have evidence against the nonsensical conspiracy theory that third party praise given about a recently fired CEO can be construed as evidence of a secret ownership stake in the charity that fired him, I'm going to leave that to the judgement of the reader.

Discovered a while ago by Occam.[1]

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

That’s not how Occam’s Razor works, though, as explained in your link.

Good to know.

no shit. tell me why the sky is blue.

But it's possible to maintain that good policy without publicly endorsing his side of someone else's argument though...

I don't do marketing for YC but Paul Graham does so you'd have to ask him about how they deal with such situations. My comment is just my opinion.

Jessica went out of her way to use the slightly awkward phrase 'founding donor', so she's at least trying to imply she isn't just trying to protect an investment. I'm going to take the generous interpretation of that and assume she means what she says there, and isn't just playing politics and share price PR.