HN Explorer

Why was a negative post about a well-funded startup deleted from the front page?

27 points by tippytop ↗ HN
The thread had a number of comments, some even insightful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6594352 The post pointed to this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/10/21/practice-fusion-patient-privacy-explicit-reviews/ And a list of Practice Fusion investors for the curious: http://www.practicefusion.com/pages/investors.html

5 comments

[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 22.6 ms ] thread
rms
It looks like it was deleted by the submitter in the first hour after submission? If it was killed by the mods it would be marked as dead instead.
danso
The post seemed to be on the front page for longer than an hour, from what I remember. Looking at the link. it seems omments were being made (by various users, not just two people going at it in a dead thread) several hours after the posting
sillysaurus2
That was my first guess too, but the rankings say it was still active till 23:05: http://hnrankings.info/6594352/

... but of course they don't mention what timezone that is, so I have no idea how long ago that was.

Also, the article contains comments whose timestamps differ by more than two hours. That wouldn't be possible if the submitter deleted it.

mcphilip
I'd like to know why this was deleted too, but don't expect an answer

I encourage HN users to read the Forbes piece. A TL;DR is that PracticeFusion enabled an opt-out only patient survey feature that many physicians didn't even know was enabled. Patients, though technically warned their responses could be used publically, mistook the survey emails as communication directly with their physician. However, now that PracticeFusion launched their review site it's obvious that many of the reviews contain information that should only be shared between a patient and doctor.