4 ms·

> PayPal told me that “the security of customer accounts is a top priority for the company.” I wish journalists would ridicule this corporate bullshit lingo in

> PayPal told me that “the security of customer accounts is a top priority for the company.” I wish journalists would ridicule this corporate bullshit lingo instead of just relaying it. I'm fairly certain that anyone that ever had contact with PayPal's (or Amazon's, or probably any other large corporation's) customer service with issues regarding security can attest that it's absolutely not one of their top priorities. They haven't even bothered to make their official emails not look like phishing attempts. They don't care about security.

inetknght 7y ago
> They haven't even bothered to make their official emails not look like phishing attempts. They don't care about security. Man, now that you mention about it, I thought the same thing every time I see an email from PayPal and just disregarded the thought because it's so common from websites and nobody cares. It's _literally_ the business model of some of the top email marketing companies. In either case, now that you mention it, I don't think it was mentioned in yesterday's six vulns disclosed or in today's.
7777fps 7y ago
It's called the "right of reply". It's courtesy to reach out to a company and include their response without critique about whether it's "corporate bullshit".
- inetknght 7y ago
  I agree that reaching out to whomever's being criticised is a courtesy and, sometimes, even legally required. But I don't think it's right to not critique. When a company blatantly uses doublespeak, that should absolutely be critiqued.
  - carapace 7y ago
    You're talking about blurring the difference between journalism and opinion.
    - herendin2 7y ago
      No, the journalist could easily find independent evidence that suggests the corporate statement is bullshit. It should be challenged and ridiculed. That is the journalist's duty, and they failed. Their job is not to be a copy and paste machine for company press releases.
      - carapace 7y ago
        I agree with your first and third sentences, but not your second.
        luckylion 7y ago
        You don't think they should challenge a company's claim, or should they, but not in the same article?
        carapace 7y ago
        It's not the journalist's duty to ridicule anyone. Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" was very entertaining, and even somewhat informative, but I think he would be one of the first to say that it wasn't journalism. I don't like corporate bullshit lingo either but when that's what they say as their formal statement to the press then relaying it is the journalistic duty. It's one thing if the company is outright lying, but PR blather doesn't really count (for all that it's pointless and annoying.) In any event, yeah, if they want to editorialize, that's fine but it's done in a separate "Editorial" section. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial )
        luckylion 7y ago
        You wouldn't need to take Jon Stewart's approach though. I'd be fine if the ridiculing comes from another party that the journalist gives room to. Ask a consumer advocate what they think of PayPal's statement, or ask an infosec professional. Letting the PR speech stand by itself without large red arrows pointing at the absurdity gives it way too much power imho.

inetknght 7y ago

> They haven't even bothered to make their official emails not look like phishing attempts. They don't care about security. Man, now that you mention about it, I thought the same thing every time I see an email from PayPal and just disregarded the thought because it's so common from websites and nobody cares. It's _literally_ the business model of some of the top email marketing companies. In either case, now that you mention it, I don't think it was mentioned in yesterday's six vulns disclosed or in today's.

7777fps 7y ago

It's called the "right of reply". It's courtesy to reach out to a company and include their response without critique about whether it's "corporate bullshit".

inetknght 7y ago
I agree that reaching out to whomever's being criticised is a courtesy and, sometimes, even legally required. But I don't think it's right to not critique. When a company blatantly uses doublespeak, that should absolutely be critiqued.
- carapace 7y ago
  You're talking about blurring the difference between journalism and opinion.
  - herendin2 7y ago
    No, the journalist could easily find independent evidence that suggests the corporate statement is bullshit. It should be challenged and ridiculed. That is the journalist's duty, and they failed. Their job is not to be a copy and paste machine for company press releases.
    - carapace 7y ago
      I agree with your first and third sentences, but not your second.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        You don't think they should challenge a company's claim, or should they, but not in the same article?
        carapace 7y ago
        It's not the journalist's duty to ridicule anyone. Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" was very entertaining, and even somewhat informative, but I think he would be one of the first to say that it wasn't journalism. I don't like corporate bullshit lingo either but when that's what they say as their formal statement to the press then relaying it is the journalistic duty. It's one thing if the company is outright lying, but PR blather doesn't really count (for all that it's pointless and annoying.) In any event, yeah, if they want to editorialize, that's fine but it's done in a separate "Editorial" section. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial )
        luckylion 7y ago
        You wouldn't need to take Jon Stewart's approach though. I'd be fine if the ridiculing comes from another party that the journalist gives room to. Ask a consumer advocate what they think of PayPal's statement, or ask an infosec professional. Letting the PR speech stand by itself without large red arrows pointing at the absurdity gives it way too much power imho.