> Perhaps you're still looking for the 'blast far and wide' angle.

Consider the idea that there is no angle here at all. What if you are simply witnessing people communicating with other people? No angles, no channels?

You read this, and your takeaway was that "SV folks have an elevated sense of purpose". That is only true under the premise that they wrote this with the intent to .. I don't know, self-market. To get reach, clicks, whatever. The usual imaginary Internet points.

What if they didn't? What if we just stumbled upon part of a genuine conversation that simply isn't directed at us?

I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive earlier - because I was.

I grew up on a different Internet, where the vast majority of stuff was in some form genuine, even if it was psychotic, moronic or simply mundane and boring.

You might disagree, but my bullshit detectors tell me that this is genuine. Which is rare these days. And because I miss that stuff, I am somewhat protective of it. Sorry for lashing out.

PS - "autistic" as code for "retarded" is, you know, like, so totally 2018.

PPS:

> Your position is ridiculous about keeping a situation private, while it's on the front page of hacker news. Give yourself a reality check about intentions.

If somebody else posts a link to something I wrote to some link aggregator, that neither says nor changes anything about my intentions when I wrote it. That much should be, in your words, "self-evident".

This is not about privacy. Just because you can access it in a browser does not make you the target, just as being able to listen to a conversation in a subway does not make you a party to it. Again, self-evident.

PPPS:

After that "moron", I'll take back my apology, thank you very much,