I got that reasoning just fine, and had no trouble following it. I was objecting to the flimsy pretense of bringing it up on a case that obviously doesn’t need whistleblowers since it was all done out in the open and advertised, and everyone agrees on all facts-on-the-ground but only ever differed on legal interpretation.

> Even if this particular case didn't go down like that, I still think it's an interesting point that's relevant to the discussion.

There are lots of things I’m sure you and I might find interesting. But HN doesn’t benefit from the practice of “ooh, let me use this topic as a pretense to post something I wanted to share regardless, and without reading the article”.