90% of the submissions from people sharing their experience with a company/product here would fall under that description as well (and many of those are upvoted because they seem useful)

That dude who interned at repl.it a while back and posted about a mildly bad experience was upvoted to the front page for over a day. people had their pitchforks out.

I think we should maintain higher standards of evidence before getting our pitchforks out, but at the same time, we should let people have their platform if people find it discussion-worthy. In the case of Repl.it or the 1000s of posts of people being shadowbanned from big tech without explanation, we let people have their say, and we let the platform help them where possible. The HN algorithmic spotlight is usually pretty fair with illuminating all sides when they present themselves here.

The submission here is extremely detailed and well-written, and makes a great case. There are multiple claims made which, were they misleading or inaccurate, the other party could discredit quite easily.

But instead of doing that, we're seeing the post repeatedly get flagged.

There could be other reasons this is happening, and I assume many, like myself, are withholding judgment.

But the silence from Rune, and dialogue suppression tactics by mystery parties honestly just make me more inclined to believe there is at least a grain of truth in the original submission.