People often act out when they are emotionally upset, which the former Amazon employee clearly was.

This whole HN thread is kind of amazing -- it's filled with ad hominem attacks against Carney because of his history in politics.

Very few of the articles actually addressed Carney's main idea: the primary source from the NYT had a possible agenda/bias. The NYT reporters knew that, but did not report it. They also misled the Amazon people about their objective, pitching it differently and hiding facts that would have undercut their point.

It seems like Carney presented a lot of facts. If you dispute the facts in the article, or think Carney flat-out made up the email he quotes at length (or the reason for dismissal), then you are at least addressing the content of what he says.

granted, i have no idea what his political history is, as I'd never heard his name before.