Someone sharing something on Twitter isn't supposed to be journalism. AFAIK the original author isn't a journalist, she's a technologist who got fed up.
Then why her writing is taken seriously by anyone? This piece at best is an opinion, mostly trash.
Hearsay, rumours, implication, this is professional gossiping. I don't deny the claims she makes, but the form in which she makes them really doesn't help her case, and the form clearly calls to create an online shitstorm.
We should shame publications who use "stories" like these. It's damaging for everyone involved and whatever the subject matter is. I refuse to take seriously what should not be.
I think you're confusing complaints about copying twitter posts verbatim and calling it a story with an attack on somebody making a public worker's rights and possible discrimination complaint.
The reason we listen to people is to learn things.
People's stories, especially people in disadvantaged communities, aren't "mostly trash," they're worth listening to. They're a way to know what's going on in those disadvantaged communities if you're not a part of them.
We are not commenting on an HN submission that is a link to someone's tweet/tweets. We are commenting on a submission to Wired Magazine, a publication owned by Conde Nast. Wired's reporting added nothing to this story. (There is no reporting) They didn't interview the person, they didn't interview her employer, and they didn't offer any analysis whatsoever. The reporter didn't storify the tweets herself. Wired did insert advertisements and is getting page views for it though. It is Wired's job to do more than they have done here. You should expect more from them or anyone who purports to inform you.
