3 ms·

We apologize the tweet was negatively perceived. This is not even a real apology. This is a non-apology apology: a re-skinned "I'm sorry you feel that way."

• chaosmachine 16y ago
  Did not mean to upvote this. I don't think Microsoft has anything to apologize for here (raising money and awareness via retweets?), so a non-apology seems entirely appropriate. How many people complaining about this have donated even $1? I'll take all the karma burning you can dish out, I've got lots to spare, but calling them "Douchebags" for donating 100k is over the top.
  • middus 16y ago
    So you are implying that one has to donate a thousand bucks to be allowed to complain about a company turning a tragedy into a marketing stunt? /e: the parent poster edited his post. In the original version of his post, he asked whether anyone who criticizes bing has donated 1% of $100k.
    • baddox 16y ago
      I find your implication that this was a marketing stunt much more insensitive than the original controversial tweet. First off, this is a tweet, so presumably only people who follow Bing would originally see it, and it would be up to them to retweet it. Is any public corporate humanitarian donation a marketing stunt by your definition? Should corporations keep these things secret? That seems like nonsense to me.
      • middus 16y ago
        No, because they ask people to retweet it. Hence, they (probably?) want to achieve that people that do not follow @bing will see it in their timeline. Not every public corporate humanitarian donation is a marketing stunt. I guess it would have been perceived very different, had they just announced that they donated a $100k instead of making the amount that they are going to donate a function of retweets. Just imagine them tweeting "Bing just donated $100k to help the people in Japan. Join us at http://blabla http://blabla to find out what else we can do."?
        • baddox 16y ago
          Do you really think the people offended by this tweet would have been less offended if Bing had originally tweeted that the donation was already made? I doubt it, especially considering that their follow-up tweet which did just that has only further offended those who have chosen to be offended. I think the idea was for the $1 donation to be an incentive for people to retweet, which would spread the link to the Microsoft Disaster Response page.
          • rbanffy 16y ago
            > would have been less offended if Bing had originally tweeted that the donation was already made? I would find it more acceptable, yes. Not asking people to retweet in order for them to donate UP TO $100K would be more honorable. There are noble ways to get 100K retweets. This is not one of them.
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  • pohl 16y ago
    calling them "Douchebags" for donating 100k Disingenuous. I was clearly referring to the non-apology. And for that you get a nozzle.
  • michaelcampbell 16y ago
    Raising awareness of an event of this magnitude? Really? Does anyone honestly think this is what Microsoft was doing? I don't know if it's more ridiculous to think that anyone who uses Twitter or Bing need to be made aware of the destruction in Japan, or that someone honestly believes Microsoft thinks there are such people.
    • rbanffy 16y ago
      > Does anyone honestly think this is what Microsoft was doing? Microsoft executives. They can honestly believe (to the extent of sustaining that under oath) whatever they want.
  • jonsmock 16y ago
    All I know is that I felt conflicted when I saw the tweet. "Do I retweet? It's for a good cause. But, I don't want to support Bing." I didn't retweet and felt a bit guilty. I didn't want to be used either.
• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• baddox 16y ago
  This seems like a sincere apology. Given the text of the controversial tweet (which I believe isn't the slightest bit insensitive or inappropriate), a "real" apology would likely have been insincere. Anyway, as soon as you challenge the "realness" or validity of a specific apology, it brings up the issue of what the purpose of an apology really is, especially an impersonal apology from a major corporation. To me, an apology is not necessarily an admission of guilt. An apology is an expression of regret. What would you propose to be a "real apology" in this case? Do you want Bing to tweet out that they purposefully did this to slight the victims of the tragic earthquake and get retweets? Do you think that would be honest? edit: typo
  • pohl 16y ago
    An apology is an expression of regret. And any old regret will do? How about regret for the action? They might as well express regret that there wasn't enough mayonnaise on the sandwich they had for lunch.
    • baddox 16y ago
      It's fair to regret a certain consequence of an action, but not the action itself. When you say something that people decide (irrationally, in this case) is insensitive or offensive, there's nothing you can do subsequently that will appease them. The people who have chosen to be offended by the original tweet will likely remain steadfast in their choice. Even a "real apology" according to their bizarre concept of "apology" wouldn't appease them. Remember, people choose for themselves what they find offensive. If you do something with good intentions, and someone chooses to be offended, it's reasonable to regret their response to your action, but there's no reason to regret the action itself.