Over generalizations of what HN "is" or what HN "does" are always meaningless. It's a large group of different people who don't act as a single individual. For instance the comments and opinions in this post are very diverse.
Generalizations are just doing better than random guessing by just paying attention to base rates, or, equivalently, describing the majority / bulk of distributions. This isn't meaningless, it is just simple statistical summary in common language.
Also, with modern tools like sentiment analysis and other semantic analysis tools enabled by LLMs, it is pretty trivial to do empirical tests of claims like this (further proving how empty the claim that generalizations about a thing are "meaningless").
Being for paternalistic, censorious policies that restrict software behaviour so broadly is very obviously not "Hacker" (even if you agree with these policies), and this would have been far more surprising 10 years ago to see on HN. This is a "generalization" of the ideological shifts of HN, yes, but a meaningful one (which of course people are free to agree or disagree with).
The comment voting is very opionated though. It's like the same person up/down votes consistently. Obviously the people who vote are of the same opinion group.
This can be very frustrating when it's a false positive, but these 'neobanks' have a tendency to be very "trigger happy" and quickly close accounts whenever they have a reason to think there is fraud involved. And there's a lot of automation involved of course.
When that happens, they won't tell you the reason of course, because that would help fraudsters improve their fraud skills.
There is no reason to believe this bank actually have humans who are aware of this customer's Twitter handle, and who read it, and didn't like what they saw.
Honestly the decision to name it Clawd was so obviously spectacularly stupid and immature that it makes me wonder about the whole project? I won't try it.
reply