Has anyone else noticed that in the last year, services have begun naming upstream vendors on their status pages when service is disrupted? In other words, sayi

Has anyone else noticed that in the last year, services have begun naming upstream vendors on their status pages when service is disrupted? In other words, saying "Our service is down because AWS is disrupted" rather than "Our service is down because our upstream infrastructure vendor is disrupted". Naming the vendor during an availability incident is un-classy, I'd even say childish, yet is seems to have rapidly become a mainstream practice in our field :/ In the case of naming Amazon, practices of theirs such as those described in the article bring this on themselves, since we are only human, and we resent Amazon's dishonesty. Still, we should switch away from dishonest vendors rather than use them as scapegoats when our systems fail. (my point does not apply to postmortems, where every detail counts and is useful, including the specific vendors involved) Example (singling out a vendor that I otherwise think is great, sorry Filestack!): http://status.filestack.com/incidents/lzl06yzw1jq5 http://status.filestack.com/incidents/lzl06yzw1jq5 What do we stand to gain by naming the upstream vendor? (genuinely curious)