I'm really not sure. If the spirit is still to shame them or demand that they account for themselves, maybe not. If it's to make a more general point about organizations, maybe. If you had just included the titles and not the names or the links, I wouldn't have replied, so I guess the line is thereabouts.

It's true that the guidelines don't spell everything out, partly because that would be impossible, partly because beyond a certain length no one would read them, and partly because if they were written in a more legalistic or formalistic way, people would take them as sort of a bitmask, everything in the inverse of which must be ok. That's definitely not how things work here. We want a spirit of the law, not a letter of the law kind of place. I guess I've been saying this for a long time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7606756.

That's fair. Can the names in my post be redacted? It still shows up in DDG. I tried to edit it earlier after your response, but I left it too late.

I've reopened your comment for editing so you can modify it.

Edit: just to close the loop on this, the way you modified your comment does actually seem fine to me, so this was a nice test case of probing where the line actually should be. Thanks!