Somehow I'm not a fan of HN using this community for lobbyism purposes.
I remember he did an anti-SOPA thing on HN which involved some kind of banner at the top of the frontpage. It's probably saved at archive.org somewhere.
Freedom - an essential public good - is much different than using HN for lobbying for tax policy that favors YC.
You know that doing this is a big change. Why not be straightforward about it - including whose idea it is, what the parameters are, what the new policy is, etc.? If you feel you can't or feel hesitant, then you know something is wrong.
It changes the nature of HN in my mind, to something manipulative - not unlike other social media, and not unlike the trend in other businesses who embrace manipulation to greater and greater degrees.
We each have a personal responsibility to the world, as adults, to stand up for essential values. If we don't, in each of our communities, workplaces, and homes, who will? We are the only ones here; we aren't kids (not that you said we are, but to clarify the point) who can destroy things and leave it to the adults; nobody else will come in and save us.
> getting back to HN's roots
You can see a lot of companies and politicians using that - find some historical precedent and claim that is the 'roots'. There are many more roots then that.
I recall that there were a few people who supported things like SOPA and software patents back in those years too, but the community consensus was about as strong on those issues as it is on this.
It's expressly the intention of democracies to hear from constituents (and conversely: groups of constituents). That we happen to call that feedback loop "lobbying", and that the term carries some societal baggage from corporations using/abusing it is unfortunate, but shouldn't be an indictment of what is otherwise a democratic function.
Some group FOO with a shared ill should be able to convene about it and petition congress about it.