4 ms·

Unless it turns out that Twitter blatantly lied to Smyte's founders regarding how they would shut down the service, I personally will never use any service or s

Unless it turns out that Twitter blatantly lied to Smyte's founders regarding how they would shut down the service, I personally will never use any service or software that these founders create in the future. This is absolutely unbelievable, even for Twitter. [I've removed the founders' names, even though I strongly disagree with the characterization that I was somehow acting out of rage. My intent was rather consumer advocacy. I've had a service cut off in a similar way, and I view such behavior as being unethical. Fine if you disagree, but please don't characterize my emotional state that led to this post (which itself is in violation of HN's admonition to "Assume good faith")]

narendranag 8y ago
Seconded.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
duxup 8y ago
But you'll use Twitter? Kinda a weird dynamic there don't you think?
- jnbiche 8y ago
  Oh, I've long since learned not to depend on Twitter for anything critical or business related. The thing is about Smyte is that it was a b2b SaaS with paying customers, not a consumer social media company. People justifiably have certain expectations when they pay for a serious b2b SaaS that they don't have for a free social media service.
- throwawayqdhd 8y ago
  I like to use Twitter from a distance. Like a street brawl. It's fascinating to watch, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to get involved. Too messy.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I feel the same way. I'm also a bit irked with having to prune all the time. I follow someone or something that I expect to be about something and really it's just a lot of noise about other things...
pvg 8y ago
Let's not be starting witch hunts on HN, especially given the sparse info available so far. You should edit this stuff away.
- mullingitover 8y ago
  The sparse info is exactly why people are looking for answers. This was a pretty unethical business move, regardless of whether these people had themselves covered in contract language.
  - pvg 8y ago
    This is not looking for any kind of meaningful answers. It's basically a call for organized harassment, facts unknown. You are surely aware how that sort of thing has worked out on other forums.
    - jnbiche 8y ago
      [I removed from here an argument that this was public information, without mentioning the names again.]
      - dang 8y ago
        You don't have to post their names or attack them publicly in order not to do business with them. Please stop now.
- jnbiche 8y ago
  I reserve judgment as to whether it was Twitter's fault or Smyte's fault, but at the very least, it was Smyte's fault for selling to Twitter without getting any guarantees for their existing customers. At the worst, they shut down the service like this themselves. Again, if it turns out that Twitter lied to them about how the service would be wound down, I'm sure that will come out in due time. If I were one of the founders (and I know at least one of them has been often on HN), then I'd be on this thread making some explanations right now. Finally, the name of the founders isn't some kind of secret. This is public information. The founders have been featured in many media pieces. They sold their company to a public company.
dang 8y ago
Bringing in people's names in order to attack them is a breach of this site's civility rule. You needn't stoop to that in order to discuss issues of substance in this story, so please don't. All: please keep the internet rage reflex off HN. Same for the online shaming culture. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Edit: I didn't mean that you were feeling rage, but that by posting this way you were stirring it up. In any case, thanks for removing the names.)
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Bringing in people's names in order to attack them is a breach of this site's civility rule" I think there is an issue of personal integrity here, even legally. When I worked for a large F50, our CEO's name had to be on every email we sent out from our German staff - though I'm not sure of the specific German regulation, 'his name is on it' because it's a matter of integrity to the organization. The founders are generally 'Officers of the Company' - and this implies both a legal/fiduciary and moral obligation in America and most jurisdictions of relevance. I don't believe that the 'limited personal liability' concept abnegates the responsibilities of the Officers of the Company in this specific regard. I also don't believe this is a matter of arbitrary doxing if the Officers of the Company are making decisions which are considered foul play in terms of reasonable contractual obligations. Unless there is an issue of national security or likewise, there's simply no excuse for ending service without reasonable notice. This is not a political, or socially nuanced discussion such as those involving harassment etc. - this is a matter of commercial civility (and legality). In American law: "In limited circumstances, such as the sale of the small business to a new owner, the business judgment rule does not apply, and it becomes the burden of CEOs and company directors to demonstrate that their actions were in the company's best interests." [1] (FYI - the 'business judgement rule' protects Officers from liability.) I guess I understand we don't want to be doxing folks here ... but I do think it's reasonable that individuals should be held publicly accountable for their commercial actions - for example, someone does an ICO and then - legally - walks away with the cash ... we should rightfully be wary of investing in their next ICO or company for that matter. The inability for executives to be held accountable for actions of the company is a core problem in present day capitalism, in my opinion. [1] http://smallbusiness.chron.com/legal-relationship-between-shareholders-ceos-33637.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/legal-relationship-between-sh...
benatkin 8y ago
I can vouch for Pete Hunt based on what he's done for React. There's gotta be more to the story.

narendranag 8y ago

Seconded.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

duxup 8y ago

But you'll use Twitter? Kinda a weird dynamic there don't you think?

jnbiche 8y ago
Oh, I've long since learned not to depend on Twitter for anything critical or business related. The thing is about Smyte is that it was a b2b SaaS with paying customers, not a consumer social media company. People justifiably have certain expectations when they pay for a serious b2b SaaS that they don't have for a free social media service.
throwawayqdhd 8y ago
I like to use Twitter from a distance. Like a street brawl. It's fascinating to watch, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to get involved. Too messy.
- duxup 8y ago
  I feel the same way. I'm also a bit irked with having to prune all the time. I follow someone or something that I expect to be about something and really it's just a lot of noise about other things...

pvg 8y ago

Let's not be starting witch hunts on HN, especially given the sparse info available so far. You should edit this stuff away.

mullingitover 8y ago
The sparse info is exactly why people are looking for answers. This was a pretty unethical business move, regardless of whether these people had themselves covered in contract language.
- pvg 8y ago
  This is not looking for any kind of meaningful answers. It's basically a call for organized harassment, facts unknown. You are surely aware how that sort of thing has worked out on other forums.
  - jnbiche 8y ago
    [I removed from here an argument that this was public information, without mentioning the names again.]
    - dang 8y ago
      You don't have to post their names or attack them publicly in order not to do business with them. Please stop now.
jnbiche 8y ago
I reserve judgment as to whether it was Twitter's fault or Smyte's fault, but at the very least, it was Smyte's fault for selling to Twitter without getting any guarantees for their existing customers. At the worst, they shut down the service like this themselves. Again, if it turns out that Twitter lied to them about how the service would be wound down, I'm sure that will come out in due time. If I were one of the founders (and I know at least one of them has been often on HN), then I'd be on this thread making some explanations right now. Finally, the name of the founders isn't some kind of secret. This is public information. The founders have been featured in many media pieces. They sold their company to a public company.

dang 8y ago

Bringing in people's names in order to attack them is a breach of this site's civility rule. You needn't stoop to that in order to discuss issues of substance in this story, so please don't. All: please keep the internet rage reflex off HN. Same for the online shaming culture. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Edit: I didn't mean that you were feeling rage, but that by posting this way you were stirring it up. In any case, thanks for removing the names.)

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Bringing in people's names in order to attack them is a breach of this site's civility rule" I think there is an issue of personal integrity here, even legally. When I worked for a large F50, our CEO's name had to be on every email we sent out from our German staff - though I'm not sure of the specific German regulation, 'his name is on it' because it's a matter of integrity to the organization. The founders are generally 'Officers of the Company' - and this implies both a legal/fiduciary and moral obligation in America and most jurisdictions of relevance. I don't believe that the 'limited personal liability' concept abnegates the responsibilities of the Officers of the Company in this specific regard. I also don't believe this is a matter of arbitrary doxing if the Officers of the Company are making decisions which are considered foul play in terms of reasonable contractual obligations. Unless there is an issue of national security or likewise, there's simply no excuse for ending service without reasonable notice. This is not a political, or socially nuanced discussion such as those involving harassment etc. - this is a matter of commercial civility (and legality). In American law: "In limited circumstances, such as the sale of the small business to a new owner, the business judgment rule does not apply, and it becomes the burden of CEOs and company directors to demonstrate that their actions were in the company's best interests." [1] (FYI - the 'business judgement rule' protects Officers from liability.) I guess I understand we don't want to be doxing folks here ... but I do think it's reasonable that individuals should be held publicly accountable for their commercial actions - for example, someone does an ICO and then - legally - walks away with the cash ... we should rightfully be wary of investing in their next ICO or company for that matter. The inability for executives to be held accountable for actions of the company is a core problem in present day capitalism, in my opinion. [1] http://smallbusiness.chron.com/legal-relationship-between-shareholders-ceos-33637.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/legal-relationship-between-sh...

benatkin 8y ago

I can vouch for Pete Hunt based on what he's done for React. There's gotta be more to the story.