I doubt that it will deter accusatory responses, and you may get a few yourself! But it's helpful to disambiguate intent and I personally appreciate it.

I understood your intent, my comment was aimed at the child comments that collected under yours. I just felt like it needed to be explicitly said that this isn't some conspiracy/cover up. The content is still there, and who said it isn't really consequential. It doesn't help or hurt YC, it maybe shielded Austen from getting booted from Twitter, but beyond that who cares? People getting out their pitchforks because HN mods did something inconsequential, four years ago, for a person who's now labeled $bad today seems silly. More so since it's well documented that they'll do it for anyone on request. I just don't see the what justifies their outrage.

I agree partly with the lesson but more broadly I think it is that any hint of impartiality//conflict of interest for governing/regulatory bodies will be construed in a negative light. Where I disagree is that you could have saved the mods the trouble. I don't think there was any way you could have worded your original comment, or I mine, or Dang his, that would entirely quell the accusations that followed. There's one person in the thread that continued to insinuate that this isn't a policy or it's a new policy; even though Dang showed his comments about this policy going back almost a decade.