I can believe you're well-intentioned, but we don't need comments like this on HN. The guidelines [1] address this style of commenting in different ways:

Converse curiously; don't cross-examine.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I know it feels important to protect vulnerable people from being harmed by frauds, and related concerns. But we can safely assume that HN readers are reasonably competent and discerning adults, who can make up their own mind about these things.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

zealtrace 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree my reply would be improved if reframed to be less cross-examining, particularly given I was responding to two different comments at once. That said, the substance I raised is around services that were shared, and something a business owner in the mental health field can be fairly expected to receive feedback on.

I have benefited from psychedelics. I have also spent a lot of time with many survivors of severe domestic abuse / IPV / coercive control. Inducing psychedelic states in a workplace context in general would give me pause, but particularly so since it is likely to involve this population. The lifetime prevalence for US women is about 25%[1], and 10% for men[2], so this is a live issue in a workplace of any size.

I disagree that it's reasonable to expect readers to fully assess these service offerings. Issues around informed consent when doing psychological/spiritual work are complex and benefit from many perspectives. This is one of the reasons mental health is a regulated industry, with strict rules around client relationships, and ongoing ethics classes required to maintain licensure. If this were a piece of software impacting human health and I saw such potential technical issues, I would raise those as well.

I don’t believe this person is a fraud, and did not intend to give the impression I did. They are navigating a difficult and undeveloped regulatory landscape. There may be some social nuance I am missing, and I'm hoping this context improves the discussion.

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02664-7/full... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/intimate...

	▲	tomhow 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the reply. I completely agree this topic in which caution and rigour is necessary and I appreciate you expanding on your thoughts about that. My main concern was the cross-examining style of your original comment and it seems like you accept that the comment could have been better in that regard. Many thanks.

▲

latexr 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I have nothing but respect for the work of moderating HN, I have no doubt it’s incredibly difficult. I also wonder if you’d be getting downvoted if more people realised who you are (as a non-mod who occasionally cites the rules and tries to be respectful while doing so, I know it isn’t a popular stance).

All that said, I too disagree with this point:

> But we can safely assume that HN readers are reasonably competent and discerning adults, who can make up their own mind about these things.

On the contrary, we can safely assume HN readers include teens and younger.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4653053

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22883469

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5947260

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14137926

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34059645

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=135494

I simply opened the HN search, did not change any defaults, and searched “I am” then 14 and 12. I didn’t even click through the second page of each. Those posts are old (they were ordered by popularity by default) but the point stands.

Even regarding adults I must disagree. Bad actors often actively try to hide their actions, so finding and reporting what could be harmful is useful and a service to the community. We all have our blind spots and are gullible in certain areas, or may just be having a lazy day and not doing due diligence. The HN community is in no way immune to human faults and biases.

I’m just one data point but I didn’t find your parent post disrespectful or unreasonably negative, and their questions were valid. It didn’t feel like a post deserving of rebuff.

	▲	tomhow 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The commenter has replied and accepted that their comment could have been better with respect to the accusatory, cross-examination style, which was the main concern I had. Regarding the age of HN users: yes I know it's not the case that 100% of participants are mature adults; when I make a comment like that I have to ask myself "do I really need to couch this with the concession that this is not a 100% watertight assumption?" Evidently yes :) I think it's important to defend against hostile comments towards people sharing unconventional healing techniques on HN. People who share these concepts can be vulnerable to attack from people who feel very emboldened by their faith in mainstream approaches and allegiance to orthodoxy. I know it can be exasperating, trying to be heard when faced with attacks like that, no matter how well-intentioned, well-researched and conscientious you are. We don't want HN to be a place that allows hostile treatment towards marginal voices to go un-defended, because it's usually the case that transformative ideas start out as fringe ideas, and risk being lost altogether unless someone makes the effort to advocate for them, often at great personal cost.