This past year has been filled with a vast amount of false accusations; in my opinion, it would be wise to be sceptical of any claims that aren't backed up with any evidence.
Anyone could write an article saying that Uber was misogynistic towards them in some way, and everyone will eat it up because they already hate Uber over the JFK airport stuff.
He might done something against the guidelines on HN, but the way to counter it is not by violating the guidelines yourself. That's what the downvote button is for.
People might be less inclined to call you a shitlord if your account did something other than post one- and two-liners about hot-button political events that largely just express your opinion. OK, great, you're skeptical about her account because "too often these stories are lies", says Mr Instant Facts. Have you got anything to back this up, or are you just making things up because it's fun to post things to the Internet? The woman in question at least posts her stuff under her real name...
Have you read the article though? Often hearing one-side isn't enough to render a verdict, but in this case it's incredibly hard to hear Susan's side and witness the poise with which she retells it and be able to imagine any version of events where the organization did nothing wrong.
Skill at composing a narrative does not lend additionally credibility to a narrative. This is emotional thinking; there is a very good reason that thousands of years of developing legal systems has led to an alleged victim providing proof.
