Summary Digital Platform Accountability & Free Expression Advocates
This investigative article documents alleged abuse of moderator power on Reddit by Michael Novati against competitor Codesmith bootcamp, including censorship, harassment, targeting of employees' family members, and manipulation of online narratives. The content advocates strongly for freedom of expression, privacy protection, fair process, and democratic accountability in digital platform governance.
Reddit should not be considered an authoritative source. Period. At this point it's the most astroturfed place on the internet. Accounts are bought and sold like cheap commodities. It's inherently unreliable.
That said, in this instance Codesmith actually has an unusually strong defamation case. That Reddit mod is not anonymous, and has made solid claims (about nepotism with fabricated details, accusations of resume fraud conspiracy, etc.) that have resulted in quantifiable damage ($9.4M in revenue loss attributed to Reddit attacks,) with what looks like substantial evidence of malice.
Reddit, though protected to some extent by Section 230, can also credibly be sued if (1) they are formally alerted to the mod's behavior, i.e. via a legal letter, and (2) they do nothing despite the fact that the mod's actions appear to be in violation of their Code of Conduct for Moderators. For then matter (2) might become something for a judge or jury to decide.
I'm actually confused as to why Codesmith hasn't sued yet. (?!?) Even if they lose, they win. Being a plaintiff in a civil case can turn the tables and make them feel powerful rather than helpless, and it's often the case that "the process is the punishment" for defendants.
Michael reminds me of a fellow named ewk, from the zen subreddit. In his obsessive energy and poisonous tactics. It really is a thing to see. A type. There must be a name for it
I don't know about this particular case, but, generally... bad actor subreddit moderators have been an occasional thing for well over a decade.
And it's also been widely known for that long that Reddit is an influential venue in which to take over a corner -- for marketing or propaganda.
What's an equal concern to me is how insufficiently resilient Reddit collectively appears to be, in face of this.
A bad actor mod of a popular subreddit can persist for years, visibly, without people managing either to oust the mod, or to take down the sub's influence.
(Subreddit peasants sometimes migrate to a new sub over bad mods, but the old sub usually remains, still with a healthy brand. And still with a lot of members, who (speculating) maybe don't want to possibly miss out on something in the bad old sub, or didn't know what's going on, or the drama they noticed in their feed wasn't worth their effort to do the clicks to unjoin from the sub in question.)
The article was fascinating, but the part I didn't see was... what was the motive? Assuming the article paints an accurate picture of what was going on... why was it going on? Is it solely because he runs a company in the same competitive space?
That's common. A marketing company took over r/mattress in order to get rid of any unfavorable reviews and pump up any bed in box mattress company as long as these companies pay to that market company. For more, https://www.reddit.com/r/MattressMod/comments/1c28g7b/recent...
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm.
Pretty shocking that someone whose business is being actively attacked on a subreddit, one that is not only relevant to them but is one of the biggest drivers of student interest and a major recruiting tool, has no recourse in this situation. A lot of people mentioning the legal angle don’t realize what a nightmare that kind of litigation would be. It’s frankly outrageous that Reddit doesn’t take the time to investigate such a flagrant conflict of interest and just chooses not to respond at all. I understand not wanting to police every subreddit but now you’re talking about potentially millions in losses for a business. All because of one unhinged asshole who’s trying to promote his own competing business. If this doesn’t turn into a lawsuit hopefully it makes enough noise for Reddit to pay attention and help resolve the issue.
It seems clear that this dude is engaged in a vendetta, but I feel like a larger issue lurking in the background is the whole swirling mist of Google, Reddit, and mod policies.
In the first place it's troubling that Google ever had so much power, and that AI search tools do now. The idea that a business can succeed or fail based on what appears on the first screen when someone types your business name into a little box is insane. It's just another indication to me that these large gatekeepers need to be shattered, simply in order to create more independent avenues of potential research.
In the second place, the centralization of forum-like content under Reddit likewise gives Reddit undue influence. There's a lot of good stuff on Reddit but it would be better for all that good stuff to be on a lot of separate sites.
And then there's the question of Reddit mod policies. The policy cited in the article falls into the same trap we see with laws on political corruption and the like. It says what you can not do, and narrowly circumscribes it in terms of "exchange" for "compensation", which focuses only on direct quid pro quo kinds of abuse of power. I think we should push for a much greater level of integrity, more like: "In your moderation, you must put the impartial furtherance of the good of the community ahead of your personal interests." I think there would be very little doubt that this moderator's actions fall afoul of such a policy.
Reddit has a huge moderation issue. Mods run the place like their fiefdoms with no regard to being fair. There should be a way of flagging reddit users and especially mods if they are seen to have a clear conflict of interest (as is the case with Michael Novati) and Reddit should not allow them to run groups where they are openly harassing their competitors.
This is has to stop right now as it has gone on long enough. Reddit, Google, ProductHunt, Youtube and friends are continuously using their dirty, unethical even illegal techniques driven by profit.
I have experienced all myself and I can confirm that the writer is 100% correct.
He forgot to mention though that all this is driven by the same agenda, the same people that want to control the narrative.
I Wrote about it too : https://medium.com/@klaudibregu/hugstonone-empowering-users-...
Now OpenAI joined the agenda and they are playing dirty very hard also. Yesterday Huggingface Deleted the account of a talented User @BasedBase which was creative in open weights (threatening the big techs).
The same boot army discredit and reported his work in Huggingface and Reddit till all his accounts were off.
They have done the same to me personally since ever started with Hugston.com and HugstonOne.
Just Try to google my Company name "Sverken" (that was associated with Hugston.com) It comes out Porn and prostitution services. Even though this is illegal and screw our reputation Google thinks that this is legit and wont take down the information. Instead they decided to put it in the first page ranking first.
I have made some calculations and HugstonOne it is indeed very threatening to big techs.
If Our Local AI App takes away only 0.0001% of users from proprietary model websites OpenAI, that is a huge amount of money. And that is just one of them.
They have tried everything possible to shut us up, to suppress and undermine our work, to discredit us in abusive ways, but they wont succeed.
Thank you for speaking up, hope many other do as well. I really wish you get on your feet soon and the best of luck.
FWIW, there are similar top-of-google and top-of-reddit results for all bootcamps. Try googling 'lambda school', 'hyperiondev', 'coding temple', 'le wagon' along with 'reddit', 'review' 'legit' or anything similar (or often that's not even needed.
In the end, these bootcamps charge people thousands of dollars to sell them the dream of getting a high paying job after 3 months of part time work, and that's just not realistic.
In addition, in order to survive and sell to consumers, most bootcamps are 90% sales and marketing, and 10% education. They use their own students to teach the next generation, and increase their job placement rates (if you hire your own grad you can claim that that grad got a job!).
I used to work in the industry, and in theory I think it's great to have alternatives to universities which can be elitest and out-of-date with new tech, but I left because it felt kinda like the used-car market of CS, and I don't think it's a great model overall.
I've seen a lot of shady moderation on reddit and it's one reason I quit using it. There is the obvious brigading, mods on powertrips and but also massive probably paid astro turfing campaigns. Reddit has gone downhill substantially in the last five years. HN is not immune either, but at least we dont' have a 'mods on powertrips' problem, in fact the opposite.
Moderators are the reason why I stopped using Reddit years ago.
Every idiot can become a moderator, and there seem to be no rules for them.
Suppressing free speech and banning everyone that doesn't share their opinion seems to be ok for them.
Used to moderator a decent sized sub for a decent stint. Learned a fair bit from it. Eventually decided to step back because it’s a raw deal - all interactions are antagonistic, the torrent of confrontations is essentially endless, it’s not seen or appreciated by users and obviously not paid.
So not much of a personal payoff, right? UNLESS you’re the kind of person that thrives on drama, conflict and power trips.
Meaning this actively filters for people that are radioactively toxic
I think one of the most telling facts is that pro-Novati poster u/Ok-Donuts has posted numerous comments that are clearly a violation of all norms but seems to be immune to moderation.
The LLM aspect of this, I think shows both a common weakness and an opportunity.
If you suspect something is a commonly held misconception, frequently asking a LLM about it is close to useless, because the abundance of text repeating the misconception (it is common after all) just makes the model repeat the falsehood. Asking the model to apply a more balanced view quite often triggers an iconoclastic antagonism which will just give you the opposite of whatever the commonly held opinion. I have had some success in asking for the divergence between academia and public opinion on particular issues.
Models are still very bad at determining truth from opinion, but these are exactly the times when we need the models to work the best.
There may be an opportunity if there are enough known examples of instances like this story for a dataset to be made where a model can be taught to identify the difference between honest opinion and bad faith actors, or more critically identify confidently asserted statements from those supported by reasoning.
Unfortunately I can see models that can identify such falsehoods being poorly received. When a model can say you are wrong and everybody around you says you are right, what are the chances of people actually considering the possibility that the model is, in fact, correct?
Reddit has problems with moderation being too easy and too difficult.
It is very easy to ban someone. Making the ban permanent and combining this with the moderator blocking the person (so they can't send messages), there's no appeal process.
Another part is that for any sub of reasonable volume, trying to actively moderate and shape beyond banning the most egregious actors is difficult. Deleting and locking posts for a finer level of moderation is time consuming. The judgement calls of "when is this going off the rails?" become more snap over time.
With the time consuming nature of actually moderating a sub and the ease of just banning someone - moderation becomes the policy of whoever has the most time. The stereotypical variations of this are the paid social media manager who's job it is to scrub anything positive of a competitor or negative about their brand, or a person who is moderating because of a deep interest in the subject but with strong opinions too.
With multiple active moderators, the most extreme views of each in turn become the overall "moderation philosophy" (and if those views are opposed the oldest one wins).
Combined with the echo chamber nature of the message board, the more and more extreme stances become the dominant stances.
To try to present a consistent approach to moderation (Reddit has gotten burned by inconsistent responses many times in the past) it appears that Reddit.inc is trying to be completely hands off. That in turn means that it takes extreme situations for corporate to get involved - often long after it's been a problem that they've been alerted to. Having let the problem fester for so long, when something is done, it tends to be very heavy handed, lopsided, and generates a significant amount of discontent that spreads elsewhere.
So, you've got a site that hosts thousands of message boards, that inevitably grow more and more partisan to one extreme or the other, are mostly facades for a corporation, or propaganda for a political organization.
It is impressive that it has remained "stable" for as long as it has.
> I'm actually confused as to why Codesmith hasn't sued yet.
Maybe because they don’t generate enough income to be able to afford a lawsuit that drags on for years? Or maybe because it is really hard to win defamation lawsuits? Just my speculation.
Reddit moderation is also completely broken. Mods can ban anyone for any reason and do ban people for very stupid reasons with absolutely no recourse. It is so bad I have completely stopped posting on Reddit.
Wow, very surprised to see someone mention ewk on HN of all places. So surprised in fact that I created an account to respond to you! I’ve been following him on the zen subreddit for over 10 years now, off and on. He really is an absolute sight to behold. And I’m sure there is a name for it.
> A bad actor mod of a popular subreddit can persist for years, visibly, without people managing either to oust the mod, or to take down the sub's influence.
This happens because the regular users have no power. I remember seeing some article that said a small number of mods control most of the popular subreddits. Many of them put their own bias into the system by banning users, banning sources, deleting content based on ideology, shadow banning, etc.
The other issue is as these mods linger for a while, they drive away or ban everyone who might disagree with them. So then the “community” ends up not actually disagreeing with the authoritarian mod. Reddit ends up not being resilient because it doesn’t want to be. Everyone else, is gone.
Personally I believe I've seen more people in the past few years wish a politically motivated death on somebody else via Reddit, than I have anywhere else in my life.
Now if it was "just" the incitements to violence, or if it was "just" the libeling of random businesses, that would be one thing. But the fact that BOTH types of illegal speech are becoming a problem at the same time suggests to me that Reddit's failure to moderate is systemic and total.
It is becoming exhausting watching all of these tech companies commit crimes, or enable someone else to do so, and getting off with a slap on the wrist.
- Spend time having to do some really thankless work
- Don't really have a regular work schedule
So what kind of person is going to do it?
Someone who is willing to do the work for no pay. For smaller subreddits and areas where the work of moderation isn't that heavy, you'll find passionate individuals.
Mods that moderate more time consuming content or the power mods modding many subs are chasing some other incentive. For some that means explicitly monetizing their time by pushing products and companies who pay them. For others it's the ideological satisfaction of pushing viewpoints they want pushed and suppressing viewpoints they want suppressed. For some it's prestige. For most it's probably some mix of all three.
What's absent is any incentive to surface organic, human content. That's merely a side effect of what mods do, not their main job.
> And it's also been widely known for that long that Reddit is an influential venue in which to take over a corner -- for marketing or propaganda.
Capturing moderation of a subreddit has long been a strategy of marketing agencies.
Even when they can’t take over the actual mod positions, they’ll shower the mods with free product and make them feel like a VIP. I watched this happen from inside one company and I couldn’t believe how easily the marketing team turned a mod into our biggest advocate by sending free products to them from time to time.
> A bad actor mod of a popular subreddit can persist for years, visibly, without people managing either to oust the mod, or to take down the sub's influence.
In some of the subreddits I followed, the remaining subreddit users felt some relationship with the mods over time and felt they were on the same side. There are subreddits like /r/nootropics where many users don’t realize the mod team has been captured by a supplement company (Nootropics Depot) and that they have a history of deleting some posts critical of Nootropics Depot. You would think this would be grounds for a subreddit riot, yet whenever I check it feels like everyone there is fans of Nootropics Depot and therefore they get a pass. Note that the quality of the science discussed on /r/nootropics is generally terrible and of very poor quality in recent years, which is certainly a related factor. It’s also not hard to find comments in other subreddits from people who were banned from /r/nootropics.
I think this happens across a lot of subreddits. Moderators find reasons to ban the dissenters and shape the conversation until the hive mind consensus favors the mods, so any issues aren’t discussed. People who object are banned for different reasons and minor infractions, then get tired of Reddit and move on. What remains is captured by companies pushing their products to an audience who thinks the mods are doing them a favor.
I've seen users with NSFW profiles leaving (relatively more) inane comments and their profile is private, so their posts and comments are not shown. I dread the day we can no longer evaluate users behind the comments.
Im not shocked at all. Not only do I think they were knowingly letting this kind of thing happen for years, I think they were actively participating in such sketchy practices for profit. Which easily explains how reddit could "lose" money for years and years but continuously be given more and more funding and increasingly hosting more and more content on their own servers. If they were actually losing money, they wouldn't have started hosting images and then later videos on their own servers while pushing people away from 3rd party hosts.
As an extreme example of this, the Iran subreddit is 100% run by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Any opinion wavering from official state messaging is moderated out of existence. Reddit seems to happily tolerate this kind of thing across its platform on many levels.
This isn't limited to reddit - normal forums and discord also suffer from mods with overgrown egos who treat maintaining the order as personal fight of good versus evil where they're of course the omnipotent gods of truth you can't argue with.
What is particularly specific to reddit is that subs associated with big media titles, companies etc. originally were ran by normal people, fans so to speak but at some point become marketing tools with entrusted mods whose job is to make sure no criticism of any kind - even the slightest is present. Some communities moved elsewhere, some gave up and some pretend everything is as it used to be.
There are niche places on reddit with little moderation, where actual votes people cast on posts are the moderating tool but even there, some hijackers tend to appear. Their MO is to spew dangerous content, make sub locked and then gracefully arrive as saviors who are from that point in control of what's actually posted.
I quit Reddit too. The posts and comments here are definitely much higher quality but the constant changing of titles by mods here drives me insane.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.35
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.35
SETL
+0.35
The article strongly advocates for freedom of expression and against censorship/suppression of speech. Documents how Michael deletes posts, bans users, and controls narrative, all framed as violations of Article 19.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Author documents: 'Any time you attempt to defend yourself in the main subreddit, posts get deleted.'
The article lists moderator powers: 'You can delete posts and comments at will... You can ban users at will.'
Author states: 'want to tip the narrative in your favor? Just delete some of the positive posts of your competitors.'
The article discusses: 'LLMs prioritize Reddit heavily. If you want to spin conspiracy theories, those conspiracies will start to become part of the zeitgeist as every LLM regurgitates them.'
Inferences
The author frames moderation abuse as restriction of free expression, advocating against such restrictions.
The emphasis on deleted posts and suppressed voices serves as implicit criticism of censorship.
The documentation advocates for equal access to speak and be heard in digital spaces.
+0.30
PreamblePreamble
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.30
Content advocates for respect for human dignity and equal rights in digital contexts. Emphasizes that rights violations occur when power is unchecked and unfairly distributed, connecting to the preamble's commitment to 'equal rights of men and women.'
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The article frames the Codesmith story as a violation of fundamental rights and fairness principles.
The author states: 'This isn't a normal debate where there are two sides of the truth and we need to sort through it to get to the real answer.'
The article discusses how 'Our online platforms' grant unaccountable power to individual moderators.
Inferences
The author implicitly appeals to universal principles of dignity and fairness when characterizing Michael's actions as violations of these principles.
The framing suggests that digital platforms should respect the preamble's commitment to equality and human dignity.
+0.30
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.30
The article advocates for equal treatment and against hierarchical power abuse. Michael Novati's ability to suppress competitors while maintaining impunity is framed as a violation of equal rights and dignity.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The article states: 'You can only lose your moderator slot in a few instances... So don't let any new mods in.'
Author highlights: 'No one else across the industry can do a damn thing. You get to act with impunity.'
The narrative describes layoffs and founder departure due to unequal power dynamic.
Inferences
The author argues that platform structures create unequal power that violates principles of equal dignity and treatment.
The article implicitly advocates for mechanisms that would restore equality of power and voice in digital spaces.
+0.30
Article 12Privacy
High Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.30
The article strongly advocates for privacy and protection of family members. Criticizes Michael for researching and targeting Eric's child on LinkedIn and emailing executives about the child.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author describes Michael's action: 'Michael also decided to email multiple executives at Codesmith about Eric's son.'
The author's reaction: 'WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE BRING SOMEONE'S KID INTO THIS?'
Author states: 'I've redacted the son's name and details because WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE BRING SOMEONE'S KID INTO THIS?'
Inferences
The author strongly advocates for protection of family members and private individuals from public attack.
The explicit criticism of targeting children suggests principled stance on family privacy and protection.
+0.20
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20
The article documents psychological harassment and targeting as threats to security of person. Describes relentless daily attacks that caused emotional distress and company collapse.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author describes: 'The attacks happen daily. You become a neurotic fixation of the moderator.'
The article documents Michael targeting an employee's child: 'THEN EMAILS you and other executives, accusing the kid of falsifying their LinkedIn.'
Narrative states: 'Your carefully built company culture? Eviscerated from the inside out.'
Inferences
The author frames sustained harassment as a violation of psychological security and well-being.
The documentation of targeting family members suggests advocacy against harassment-based threats to personal security.
+0.20
Article 5No Torture
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20
The article documents psychological torment and manipulation tactics, framing them as a form of cruel treatment. The sustained campaign is described as causing damage that 'escalates' and is inescapable.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author describes: 'And you begin to wonder... Maybe I'm the problem? Maybe I am doing something wrong?'
The narrative emphasizes: 'Even then, the attacks don't stop. Nothing can stop this nightmare.'
The article details psychological manipulation tactics designed to inflict harm.
Inferences
The author documents tactics as psychologically designed to cause distress and harm, advocating against such practices.
The framing suggests advocacy for protection from sustained psychological harassment.
+0.20
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20
The article documents and criticizes inequality before platform law/rules. Michael Novati operates with near-total impunity while others have limited recourse, violating equal protection principle.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author states: 'You can only lose your moderator slot in a few instances... So the subreddit is Michael Novati's show. Full stop.'
The article documents: 'No one else across the industry can do a damn thing.'
Author describes asymmetric power: 'You can delete posts and comments at will... You can ban users at will.'
Inferences
The author frames platform governance as unequal, with some actors having power while others have no recourse.
This imbalance is implicitly criticized as violating equal treatment principles.
+0.20
Article 8Right to Remedy
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20
The article explicitly documents lack of effective remedy for those harmed by moderator abuse. No recourse exists within platform structures, violating access to justice principle.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author directly asks: 'What about recourse from your competitors? Can they do anything to stop you?'
The answer provided: 'No one else across the industry can do a damn thing.'
The article describes how platform admins rarely intervene: 'Stuff has to get pretty egregious for that.'
Inferences
The author advocates for better mechanisms to address harm, highlighting absence of current remedies.
The documentation of lack of recourse serves as implicit criticism of platform governance structures.
+0.20
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20
The article criticizes Michael for making accusations without evidence and for presuming guilt. The tactic of 'accusations faster than anyone can possibly fact check' violates presumption of innocence principle.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author documents: 'Make accusations faster than anyone can possibly fact check them or even process them.'
The article shows Michael equating Codesmith to a sex cult without explicit statement: 'He doesn't technically call Codesmith a sex cult, he merely makes the association.'
Author emphasizes: 'This isn't a normal debate where there are two sides of the truth and we need to sort through it to get to the real answer.'
Inferences
The author advocates against mob justice and for burden-of-proof standards.
The criticism of Michael's tactics serves as implicit advocacy for presumption of innocence.
+0.20
Article 20Assembly & Association
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20
The article discusses ability to participate fairly in online communities (subreddits). Michael's control excludes others from fair participation.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author states: 'The subreddit is Michael Novati's show. Full stop.'
The article describes: 'You can ban users at will. Got some troublesome competitors fighting back? Just delete the little shits.'
Narrative: 'So the subreddit is Michael Novati's show. Full stop.'
Inferences
The author frames unequal control of spaces as preventing fair association and assembly.
The documentation advocates for more inclusive community participation.
+0.20
Article 21Political Participation
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20
The article discusses lack of democratic oversight and accountability in platform governance. Moderators have unchecked power with no democratic process or voting.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author states: 'You can only lose your moderator slot in a few instances: The Reddit Admins get involved... Moderators further up the mod list can kick you out.'
The article emphasizes: 'To be clear, any moderator of an industry subreddit has this power. That's not a subjective opinion, it's a fact.'
Author describes: 'Stuff has to get pretty egregious for that' (regarding admin intervention).
Inferences
The author advocates for more democratic governance of digital platforms.
The documentation implies that moderators should have accountability mechanisms similar to democratic processes.
+0.20
Article 28Social & International Order
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.20
The article discusses breakdown in social order due to platform governance failures. Advocates for better systems to maintain fair social order in digital spaces.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author states: 'There's a mole. Or at least your team suspects it. No one knows who to trust.'
The article describes: 'Your carefully built company culture? Eviscerated from the inside out.'
Narrative: 'That's how our online platforms currently work. Michael Novati has this power over the bootcamp industry.'
Inferences
The author documents how platform governance failures create disorder and distrust.
The documentation advocates for better social order in digital spaces through improved governance.
+0.10
Article 10Fair Hearing
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
+0.10
The article documents lack of fair process for disputing moderation decisions. Those accused have no fair hearing or appeal mechanism.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author states: 'Any time you attempt to defend yourself in the main subreddit, posts get deleted.'
The article describes inability to contest accusations: 'Moderators further up the mod list can kick you out.'
The narrative emphasizes: 'You can only lose your moderator slot in a few instances.'
Inferences
The author documents absence of fair hearing mechanisms for those affected by moderator decisions.
This is implicitly framed as a governance problem requiring fair process.
+0.10
Article 16Marriage & Family
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
+0.10
The article discusses protection of family in context of Michael's targeting of Eric's child. Family protection is implied as important right.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author documents targeting of family member: 'A cofounder of your competitor, starts attacking one of your employees on Reddit. Then that cofounder starts LOOKING UP THEIR KIDS ON LINKEDIN.'
The article emphasizes: 'I've redacted the son's name and details because WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE BRING SOMEONE'S KID INTO THIS?'
Inferences
The author advocates for protection of family relationships from public attack and targeting.
The strong emotional reaction serves as advocacy for family protection principles.
+0.10
Article 17Property
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
+0.10
The article discusses damage to company reputation and property (the business asset of Codesmith). Describes revenue collapse and loss of value.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author states: 'your revenue collapses by 80%'
The article describes: 'Combined with a market downtown, your revenue collapses by 80%.'
Narrative: 'For many businesses, the first page of Google for their brand name is the single most important asset for managing their reputation.'
Inferences
The author frames damage to business reputation as damage to property/assets.
The documentation advocates for protection of business property from unfair attack.
+0.10
Article 26Education
Low Advocacy
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
+0.10
The article discusses bootcamp education and criticizes unfair attacks on an educational institution. Frames attacks as harmful to access to education.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author states: 'You decide to start a coding bootcamp.'
The article discusses: 'Student applications drop. First a little… then a lot.'
Narrative emphasizes damage to educational mission: 'Your business grows... You go through 2 layoffs just to keep the lights on.'
Inferences
The author frames damage to bootcamp as damage to access to educational opportunity.
The documentation implies advocacy for fair treatment of educational institutions.
+0.10
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
+0.10
The article implies that moderators have community obligations they are not meeting. The abuse of power violates duties to the community.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Author states: 'To be clear, any moderator of an industry subreddit has this power. That's not a subjective opinion, it's a fact.'
The article implies: 'Did he wield it benevolently? If he did, I wouldn't be writing this fucking post.'
Narrative: 'Michael Novati has this power over the bootcamp industry.'
Inferences
The author frames the issue as moderators failing their obligations to use power responsibly.
The documentation advocates for moderators to exercise their power with regard for community welfare.
0.00
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND
No discussion of discrimination based on protected characteristics (race, color, sex, language, religion, opinion, national or social origin, property, birth).
0.00
Article 6Legal Personhood
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND
No discussion of legal personality or recognition before the law.
0.00
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND
No discussion of arbitrary detention or imprisonment.
0.00
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND
No discussion of rights interpretation or limitations.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
ND
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
ND
ND
Article 14Asylum
ND
ND
Article 15Nationality
ND
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
ND
ND
Article 22Social Security
ND
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
ND
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
ND
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
ND
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
ND
Structural Channel
What the site does
0.00
PreamblePreamble
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.30
Website structure is neutral; no structural advocacy or barriers observed.
0.00
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.30
No structural barriers or discrimination observed in site design.
0.00
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
No structural harm observed on the website itself.
0.00
Article 5No Torture
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
No structural cruelty or torture observed on website.
0.00
Article 6Legal Personhood
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
ND
ND
0.00
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
No structural inequality observed in website design itself.
0.00
Article 8Right to Remedy
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
No structural barriers to legal remedy observed on website.
0.00
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
ND
ND
0.00
Article 10Fair Hearing
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.10
No structural unfairness observed on website.
0.00
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
No structural assault on presumption of innocence observed on website.
0.00
Article 12Privacy
High Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.30
No structural privacy violations observed on website.
0.00
Article 16Marriage & Family
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.10
No structural family harm observed on website.
0.00
Article 17Property
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.10
No structural property violations observed on website.
0.00
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Framing
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.35
No structural censorship observed on website itself.
0.00
Article 20Assembly & Association
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
No structural barriers to association observed on website.
0.00
Article 21Political Participation
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
No structural barriers to democratic participation observed on website.
0.00
Article 26Education
Low Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.10
No structural barriers to education observed on website.
0.00
Article 28Social & International Order
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.20
No structural disruption observed on website.
0.00
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium Advocacy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.10
No structural obligation failures observed on website.
0.00
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
ND
ND
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
ND
ND
Article 4No Slavery
ND
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
ND
ND
Article 14Asylum
ND
ND
Article 15Nationality
ND
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
ND
ND
Article 22Social Security
ND
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
ND
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
ND
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
ND
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
ND
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.64high claims
Sources
0.6
Evidence
0.7
Uncertainty
0.6
Purpose
0.8
Propaganda Flags
5techniques detected
loaded language
Excessive use of profanity and emotionally charged language throughout ('fuck me that's bad,' 'God damn,' 'fuck over your boss') to generate emotional reaction rather than purely informational effect.
repetition
'Every day, another attack. Every fucking day.' and repeated emphasis on daily/relentless nature of attacks to establish pattern.
appeal to fear
Opening narrative scenario designed to create dread and anxiety about potential reputation attacks ('This can happen to your business too').
causal oversimplification
Article attributesCodesmith's revenue collapse primarily to Michael's attacks, though mentions market downturn as secondary factor. Oversimplifies complex business failure to single cause.
strawman
Michael's sex cult comparison is somewhat exaggerated in severity and explicitness to make it appear more ridiculous than original statement ('Did Michael just compare Codesmith to a goddamn sex cult? Yes he did folks').
Solution Orientation
0.21problem only
Reader Agency
0.1
Emotional Tone
confrontational
Valence
-0.7
Arousal
0.8
Dominance
0.8
Stakeholder Voice
0.383 perspectives
Speaks: authorinstitution
About: corporationindividualsinstitution
Temporal Framing
mixedmedium term
Geographic Scope
national
United States
Complexity
moderatemedium jargongeneral
Transparency
0.50
✓ Author✗ Conflicts✗ Funding
Audit Trail
2 entries
2026-02-28 10:41
eval
Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.11 (Mild positive) -0.38
2026-02-28 09:09
eval
Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.48 (Moderate positive)
build d1f8d9e+mpqz · deployed 2026-02-28 11:28 UTC · evaluated 2026-02-28 11:36:20 UTC
Support HN HRCB
Each evaluation uses real API credits. HN HRCB runs on donations — no ads, no paywalls.
If you find it useful, please consider helping keep it running.