3 ms·
>Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts It’s very odd you say the article has “no facts”, yet it provides dates for these b
by will_brown 8y ago
>Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts
It’s very odd you say the article has “no facts”, yet it provides dates for these business dealings, invoices and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts...what do you consider a fact? Do you believe salesforce had no idea what backpage was doing and how salesforce products facilitated the same?
While waiting years for the court to decide, you should kno statistically there is less than 10% chance there is a trial that goes to verdict and >90% chance salesforce settles with a requirement of confidentiality and no admission/finding of wrong doing/liability.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- uhhhhhhh 8y ago>yet it provides dates for these business dealings That isn't illegal, and doesn't prove what was known by the company at the time. >and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts Which again, doesn't prove the company knew anything about the client or what the customizations are being used for. So far we know that salesforce provided services to a company like it does many other companies. We don't know if it participated knowing the business/use case. Those are the facts I"m talking about. So while you seemingly make your mind up on allegations without facts, I'll wait for facts or otherwise wait to make up my mind. If those facts don't come out, then my mind just doesn't get made up.