I think it's petty to think as such. Aaron Swartz has been a major topic of discussion on the HN Front Page for a couple of days now, hence it could very well have been instantly submitted to HN by some over-zealous HN reader as well. (Do remember that a sizable number of new users have joined since the initial news about Aaron's death.)

Just in this case, I'd suggest giving them the benefit of doubt.

I can't believe that you "flagged" the post because you believe an account was created specifically for this submission.

If the community doesn't feel the story is anything worth reading I'm sure it will slip from the face of HN before you have time to blink.

Why does it matter who submits an interesting story?

Interesting is only one criterion for hacker news.

I actually tried to submit it before "martinoma" but was told that I was submitting too often. It's hard to say if TC really did submit its own story - throwaway accounts are quite common nowadays.

I'm not affiliated with TC.

Admittedly, I did decide to submit quickly so that I (might) reap the upvotes--HN has been transfixed by Aaron Swartz, and reasonably so, and I thought that people might like a reminder of how the community reacted a few months ago.

I wonder if it might not be better to not award karma for submissions which are upvoted. It's possible/probable that most stories of value would get submitted anyway, and it would discourage the mad rush to submit.

Not a bad idea. Or maybe simply bifurcate the karma. One value for stories and one for comment quality.

Well, does karma have any value?

Yeah, the bookmarklet does all the work.

Bookmarks help.

My timestamps show a 3 minute difference. Reading the very short article and submitting the article via bookmarklet takes only one to two minutes.