> And what is there to say, really? "I clicked the wrong thing." There are many things say. That's probably why they want to talk to him. Was it a random mista

> And what is there to say, really? "I clicked the wrong thing." There are many things say. That's probably why they want to talk to him. Was it a random mistake? Did anything else contribute? Was he on Hacker News writing a comment at the time? Was he tired, sick, under the influence? There were other people including a supervisor, did the supervisor approve, did they double check later? Did they distract him somehow? They might conclude it was the stupid user interface but they'll still do the legwork of investigating and getting all the details. One thing they definitely don't want to do is answer the question of "Did you try to talk to the individual?" or "Nah, we saw online how everyone was jumping on redesigning the UI and assumed it had to be that so never talked to him". > You can always make a careful statement later on advice of counsel. Nothing is lost by remaining quiet at first. That's what he did it seems: released a written statement then STFU. Hopefully he got a lawyer cause it seems he'll need it. > Nothing is lost by remaining quiet at first. True. Ideally it is the best strategy. But here it is drawing more attention to the case. It's in the news again. And he is also getting death threats.