5 ms·

So your argument is that this person has no rights to know who this person who is scamming startup employees is and that the "reasonable" action they should tak

So your argument is that this person has no rights to know who this person who is scamming startup employees is and that the "reasonable" action they should take is to offer $100k. You can't seriously believe this makes sense, right?

x0x0 10y ago
Just to be clear, your offer is this ex-employee possibly gets to pay a $x00k legal bill for your convenience, right? Read about, eg, what happened to Mother Jones when a billionaire sued them. It's easy for one person with more money than the other to impose huge costs in our legal system.
- ryguytilidie 10y ago
  You're right, we should never ever do the right thing and just live in fear.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    It is easy to be generous with other people's time and money, yes.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      Exactly. It strikes me as the same sort of entitlement dynamic that so many open source project maintainers face. "You gave me a free thing? Well it's wrong and you should give me a much better free thing. For free!" I don't mind people wanting things. We all want things. But I think it's a problem when that crosses the line into expectation or demand.
      - ryguytilidie 10y ago
        Where exactly do you believe I "demanded" anything? I simply mocked YOUR demand (funny how this ended in me getting criticized for being demanding...) if someone dare even ask who these founders are, they must give her a six figure sum...
        wpietri 10y ago
        I did not in fact demand anything. I said explained a way that people could make whistleblowers more comfortable if they really wanted more information public.
        ryguytilidie 10y ago
        Okay, great. Thanks for the contribution in telling anyone that if they want to know information they should offer a stranger six figures. Great contribution. I was clearly wrong.
        wpietri 10y ago
        You have really gotten the gist of my point. Good job, random anonymous internet dude. I am so relieved to finally be appreciated.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - gotrecruit 10y ago
    nah you're right, we should all be generous and give all YOUR money and things away. not our stuff though, we wanna keep those. let's just give away YOUR money.
    - ryguytilidie 10y ago
      I know that this is hackernews and being super obtuse and snarky trumps logic at all times, but uhhhh, where exactly do you believe I implied other people should be giving their money away?
      - wpietri 10y ago
        You appear to believe that Penny Kim should have named names. That would have increased her risk of a lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive. Ergo, if you argue for her naming names, you believe she should be willing to spend a lot of money on what you want.
- ryguytilidie 10y ago
  I guess I'll give a non sarcastic reply even though I didn't think it would be necessary to give your obviously rhetorical, snark question that had no connection to reality: "Just to be clear, your offer is this ex-employee possibly gets to pay a $x00k legal bill for your convenience, right?" No.
wpietri 10y ago
I cannot quite fathom the confusion of ideas that results in your comment here. What does a "right" to know something mean? Apparently you think that kelukelugames has the right to force Penny Kim to make public statements that would put her at the risk of a major lawsuit. Can kelukelugames compel this of everyone who has a bad employer experience? By what mechanism is the right enforced? What are the penalties if kelukelugames right to know is not enforced? As far as I'm concerned, the only rights involved here are Penny Kim's rights to privacy and freedom of association. She was not obligated to publish this. Doing so was difficult and puts her at risk. It was a gift. I think it's ungracious to look at a gift and say, "YOU OWE ME MORE!" If you would like people to publish more things like this, especially to the extent of naming names, then I think the best approach is to reduce the risk to whistleblowers. One way to do that is to create a legal defense fund large enough to handle a lawsuit over the naming of names. My guess is that $100k is about the minimum for that. Does that help explain my comment?
- ryguytilidie 10y ago
  So to recap: "I cannot fathom what you mean" "Apparently you think that kelukelugames has the right to force Penny Kim to make public statements that would put her at the risk of a major lawsuit. Can kelukelugames compel this of everyone who has a bad employer experience? By what mechanism is the right enforced? What are the penalties if kelukelugames right to know is not enforced?" Wait so is it that you don't understand my point or that you literally are making up my point? I never even made the slightest implication I believe any of that and you made up this entire system of beliefs for me. This is insane. Stop. "I think it's ungracious to look at a gift and say, "YOU OWE ME MORE!"" Oh hey, another thing I didn't do! Fun! But yeah, you're right, this is unreasonable! You know what is reasonable though? Anyone who even dare ask a question should be forced to pay a six figure some because some guy on the internet said so and really that is it. I'll let you get back to mocking behaviors you made up in other sub comments. Thanks for your contribution.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    When you say, "X has a right to Y", a reasonable interpretation of that is, "Someone(Z) is punished if X is denied access to Y". For example, I could say I have a right to structurally secure buildings. If the floor of the mall falls apart underneath me, I can sue them for damages for not obeying the building code. If the mall's owners refuse to pay, the police will storm their house to extract payment(and if they resist, they could be shot). The police could end up shooting someone to enforce this right. When you say, "This commenter has a right to Penny's information", a reasonable interpretation is, "Penny or any other person declining to support this right and provide this information will be punished or hurt in some way." It's specifically that word "right" that you used that's in question. It makes me think of "enforcement", and I don't consider the right you described to be worthy of enforcement.

x0x0 10y ago

Just to be clear, your offer is this ex-employee possibly gets to pay a $x00k legal bill for your convenience, right? Read about, eg, what happened to Mother Jones when a billionaire sued them. It's easy for one person with more money than the other to impose huge costs in our legal system.

ryguytilidie 10y ago
You're right, we should never ever do the right thing and just live in fear.
- x0x0 10y ago
  It is easy to be generous with other people's time and money, yes.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    Exactly. It strikes me as the same sort of entitlement dynamic that so many open source project maintainers face. "You gave me a free thing? Well it's wrong and you should give me a much better free thing. For free!" I don't mind people wanting things. We all want things. But I think it's a problem when that crosses the line into expectation or demand.
    - ryguytilidie 10y ago
      Where exactly do you believe I "demanded" anything? I simply mocked YOUR demand (funny how this ended in me getting criticized for being demanding...) if someone dare even ask who these founders are, they must give her a six figure sum...
      - wpietri 10y ago
        I did not in fact demand anything. I said explained a way that people could make whistleblowers more comfortable if they really wanted more information public.
        ryguytilidie 10y ago
        Okay, great. Thanks for the contribution in telling anyone that if they want to know information they should offer a stranger six figures. Great contribution. I was clearly wrong.
        wpietri 10y ago
        You have really gotten the gist of my point. Good job, random anonymous internet dude. I am so relieved to finally be appreciated.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- gotrecruit 10y ago
  nah you're right, we should all be generous and give all YOUR money and things away. not our stuff though, we wanna keep those. let's just give away YOUR money.
  - ryguytilidie 10y ago
    I know that this is hackernews and being super obtuse and snarky trumps logic at all times, but uhhhh, where exactly do you believe I implied other people should be giving their money away?
    - wpietri 10y ago
      You appear to believe that Penny Kim should have named names. That would have increased her risk of a lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive. Ergo, if you argue for her naming names, you believe she should be willing to spend a lot of money on what you want.
ryguytilidie 10y ago
I guess I'll give a non sarcastic reply even though I didn't think it would be necessary to give your obviously rhetorical, snark question that had no connection to reality: "Just to be clear, your offer is this ex-employee possibly gets to pay a $x00k legal bill for your convenience, right?" No.

wpietri 10y ago

I cannot quite fathom the confusion of ideas that results in your comment here. What does a "right" to know something mean? Apparently you think that kelukelugames has the right to force Penny Kim to make public statements that would put her at the risk of a major lawsuit. Can kelukelugames compel this of everyone who has a bad employer experience? By what mechanism is the right enforced? What are the penalties if kelukelugames right to know is not enforced? As far as I'm concerned, the only rights involved here are Penny Kim's rights to privacy and freedom of association. She was not obligated to publish this. Doing so was difficult and puts her at risk. It was a gift. I think it's ungracious to look at a gift and say, "YOU OWE ME MORE!" If you would like people to publish more things like this, especially to the extent of naming names, then I think the best approach is to reduce the risk to whistleblowers. One way to do that is to create a legal defense fund large enough to handle a lawsuit over the naming of names. My guess is that $100k is about the minimum for that. Does that help explain my comment?

ryguytilidie 10y ago
So to recap: "I cannot fathom what you mean" "Apparently you think that kelukelugames has the right to force Penny Kim to make public statements that would put her at the risk of a major lawsuit. Can kelukelugames compel this of everyone who has a bad employer experience? By what mechanism is the right enforced? What are the penalties if kelukelugames right to know is not enforced?" Wait so is it that you don't understand my point or that you literally are making up my point? I never even made the slightest implication I believe any of that and you made up this entire system of beliefs for me. This is insane. Stop. "I think it's ungracious to look at a gift and say, "YOU OWE ME MORE!"" Oh hey, another thing I didn't do! Fun! But yeah, you're right, this is unreasonable! You know what is reasonable though? Anyone who even dare ask a question should be forced to pay a six figure some because some guy on the internet said so and really that is it. I'll let you get back to mocking behaviors you made up in other sub comments. Thanks for your contribution.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  When you say, "X has a right to Y", a reasonable interpretation of that is, "Someone(Z) is punished if X is denied access to Y". For example, I could say I have a right to structurally secure buildings. If the floor of the mall falls apart underneath me, I can sue them for damages for not obeying the building code. If the mall's owners refuse to pay, the police will storm their house to extract payment(and if they resist, they could be shot). The police could end up shooting someone to enforce this right. When you say, "This commenter has a right to Penny's information", a reasonable interpretation is, "Penny or any other person declining to support this right and provide this information will be punished or hurt in some way." It's specifically that word "right" that you used that's in question. It makes me think of "enforcement", and I don't consider the right you described to be worthy of enforcement.