I think this is correct. My intent was to point out it looked like 'austenallred realized he'd admitted to doing wrong. I knew HN could redact a user's data at their request and wrote my comment accordingly, but I didn't make it explicit. Unfortunately, my comment became a magnet for accusations against HN staff and 'dang personally.

The lesson seems to be to anticipate moderators being accused of conspiracy and malice more when you discuss moderator actions. This appears true not just where the stakes are high, like in startups, but everywhere. If you talk about something that may look like special privileges but you know is normal, acknowledge it to save the moderators some trouble. It may deter some of the accusatory comments and give the passerby a more accurate impression.

I doubt that it will deter accusatory responses, and you may get a few yourself! But it's helpful to disambiguate intent and I personally appreciate it.

I understood your intent, my comment was aimed at the child comments that collected under yours. I just felt like it needed to be explicitly said that this isn't some conspiracy/cover up. The content is still there, and who said it isn't really consequential. It doesn't help or hurt YC, it maybe shielded Austen from getting booted from Twitter, but beyond that who cares? People getting out their pitchforks because HN mods did something inconsequential, four years ago, for a person who's now labeled $bad today seems silly. More so since it's well documented that they'll do it for anyone on request. I just don't see the what justifies their outrage.

I agree partly with the lesson but more broadly I think it is that any hint of impartiality//conflict of interest for governing/regulatory bodies will be construed in a negative light. Where I disagree is that you could have saved the mods the trouble. I don't think there was any way you could have worded your original comment, or I mine, or Dang his, that would entirely quell the accusations that followed. There's one person in the thread that continued to insinuate that this isn't a policy or it's a new policy; even though Dang showed his comments about this policy going back almost a decade.

Right, I thought you understood. I agree with the broader lesson. I didn't mean that one could quell the accusations entirely, only partially at best (although 'dang doubts it in a sibling comment to yours). Discussions have momentum, and the top-level comment is the most visible in a thread, so an explanation in the top-level comment might have more impact than one further down the thread.