I’m pretty sure I know who you are.

This was, and probably still is, the standard anti-whistleblower playbook:

1. He's just lashing out because he was unsuccessful. (That is, claim moral equivalence. He would do the same things if he had won.)

2. He might have a point, but he's being egotistical and making it all about him. (Most whistleblowers are neurodivergent have a history of interpersonal conflict that is usually not damning, but can be dredged up. Now the conversation is all about him, and not in his favor.)

3. Sure, he does have a point, but his tone is shrill and his approach is off-putting. He's actually damaging his own cause by "acting out" and refusing to use official channels. (Never mind that "official channels" are always controlled assets. We are condemning him for not giving us advance notice.)

It's ugly, ugly work. I probably didn't cause any harm to anyone that wasn't already in the works, and maybe I couldn't have prevented any, but I wish I had done it all differently.

    > it would compromise your anonymity to say more

It's weird how you don't think of yourself as playing an active role when you are just agreeing with other people because they might be useful, but then find yourself ten years later wondering if you should have done everything differently.

Otherwise unresolved issues catch up with a person until the end of life.

So everytime someone tells that I am too much activist I answer “yes, because I think I need to speak up so I don’t have to have unfinished stuff in my head”. And after ten years when we meet they ask me if I remember …something… And I tell them I don’t as it was finished and I don’t live in the past.

Ram Dass would appreciate it. Be here and now.

I misspoke. People around me seriously thought this person was a threat to the reputation of Silicon Valley. In reality, he was a mid-tier blogger with serious writing talent but only niche appeal, and Silicon Valley was the biggest threat to the reputation of Silicon Valley.

> I'm certainly curious for more details about exactly what happened here.

Unfortunately, there's as much misinformation about this story and this person as there is truth available online. I will say this: dang did not order the ban here and it was not even his idea. Paul Graham is also not, to my knowledge, the one who ordered it, though he did not reverse it and, in retrospect, he should have.