One is plausible as the primary reason, with documented instances of it happening, as I had linked before, while the other is mere conjecture.

Because astroturfing on reddit exists doesn't mean that this is plausibly astroturfing. Any post on reddit about any business could be plausibly astroturfing by that logic.

Correct, that is what plausible means in this case, especially as we have evidence of them doing so, even in this very thread.

So it's plausible to think that you're astroturfing here to hurt the reputation of Reddit?

Because people have made posts on social media sites like HN in the past in an effort to change public perception of companies, right?

Sure, you can think that. Why do you think I'd deny my own chain of logic, just because it doesn't suit my current purpose? That's philosophical inconsistency which is not good for sound argumentation.

Surely you wouldnt disagree with it since you’re known for sound argumentation and philosophical consistency.

I see, looks like you aren't interested in actually debating, being sarcastic and calling positions ridiculous when you cannot justify your own. Have a good day.

Yes I can see why that POV is appealing when you’ve backed yourself into a corner.