Can you speak to the concerns raised about Yodlee  in contrast to similar concerns raised about Jumpshot  which resulted in the entire company being shut down last week .
How much of Second Measure's business model depends upon the continued availability of Yodlee data?
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22228715.
Why not just have the rule say what's actually meant, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then it's clearer for the rule to say that, instead of the vague, terse prohibition on complaints.
Better yet, go all the way and forbid replies entirely. That achieves the same stifling of conversation, in this one context where it's deemed "terrible", without the enforcement that can seem capricious and arbitrary (as you say yourself, "it's often not easy to tell the difference") and can needlessly shame an otherwise well-intentioned commenter.
Keeping it terse and relying on "spirit" is an excuse to maintain that aribtariness.
It's a question about a potential existential threat in the form of recent regulatory scrutiny.
Some of those grievances, accusations, and concerns are surely valid. But sometimes they're the one-sided productions of disgruntled internet commenters—I can tell you from long experience that there's a lot of that out there too. And it's often not easy to tell the difference.
What tools does an internet forum have to adjudicate such things? Mostly just thorough discussion and debate by the community. That may or may not bring out the whole story and a fair conclusion; even in the optimal context there's no guarantee that such a discussion will arrive at the truth or rise above the level of a mob piling on. But what's clear is that a "Who Is Hiring" thread is just a terrible context for that sort of cage match. Hence the rule that we just don't go there.
I have, of course, personally read all these justifications for the rule before, but they do nothing to address my question.
Why not just say what you mean, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then why doesn't the rule say that?
If you can explain in a short, simple sentence what the broader purpose of the rule is, then do so in the rule itself. Brevity may be the soul of wit but, but I expect a higher standard than rule wittiness from HN. The https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html do this fine.
Wouldn't you rather have compliance than enforcement?
That's why both the HN guidelines and that Who Is Hiring rule are written in simple language that gets the bulk of the point—the spirit of the law—across, without pretending that there isn't still room for interpretation. Readers are expected to interpret them reasonably, and in practice this works just fine. Sometimes they interpret them differently from how we do, and then we try to explain better, on a case by case basis. It's ad hoc and imprecise, which is exactly how something as messy as a large internet forum needs to operate.
You're implying that the rule here is written like the guidelines, but it isn't.
The guidelines provide some kind of explanation, reasoning, or purpose adjacent to a rule.
The "try explain better, on a case by case basis" doesn't actually succeed, only the same reason, in, perhaps, a different word order.
Surely you don't need that kind of repetition of explanation of purpose for the guidelines, since it's already there to be read. Why such resistance to doing that here, too?