6 ms·

The negativity towards to original announcement of making profiles public was deserved. For me, the negativity towards the CEO's apology and cancelling the feat

The negativity towards to original announcement of making profiles public was deserved. For me, the negativity towards the CEO's apology and cancelling the feature is not. Everyone makes mistakes and if nobody would be willing to look past that, then we'd never get anywhere.

treis 6y ago
It would have gone over a lot better if he didn't spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it. And it would have gone over a lot better if he was honest about what happened. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he's all "was that wrong? Should I not have done that?". They knew exactly what they were doing and calculated that it was worth it.
- photonios 6y ago
  I can see how that conclusion gets drawn. Any new feature that is announced can be met with some negativity. Sometimes it just ends up working despite that. It is not surprising to me that at first, they tried to defend their plans. It probably took a while for the backslash to sink in and their own opinions to change. I wouldn't expect every company, even ones that target HN's primary audience to turn everything around right away because of an angry thread within a few hours. They turned around in 2-3 days. Quick enough if you ask me. Disclaimer: I am really not in any way affiliated with Triplebyte. I am not even a user/customer. I just see a lot of negativity that I that I find unjustified.
  - treis 6y ago
    Nobody is mad about a "feature". They're mad because Triplebyte made sensitive private data public.
    - RobertRoberts 6y ago
      This ^. This is the issue. Calling it only a "feature" is just downright twisting the facts.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      They're mad because Triplebyte made sensitive private data public. And engaged in a host of dark patterns that made it difficult for people to effectively respond to that, for example by getting the data deleted and cancelling any account they had. The problem wasn't just the original error in judgement, serious as that was. It was the doubling down on it in both the implementation and the handling of the criticism when it was announced.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Except they didn’t make any data public. Yes, they were going to, but they hadn’t yet.
- username3 6y ago
  He didn't spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it.
  - JshWright 6y ago
    He certainly spent a great deal of time saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" (a classic non-apology... there's no better way to make a bad situation worse than by starting off with those words).
    - otterley 6y ago
      I interpret such a statement as expressing sympathy with someone's point of view, but also disagreeing with it.
      - nogabebop23 6y ago
        It's pretty well understood by people far less experienced than the CEO (i.e. me) that you need to split those messages up. Empathy is unconditional. It says "wow, that must be really painful/terrible/scary". It carries no judgement around the accuracy of such feelings, only an understanding that they are real for the other person. Disagreeing comes later after you have shown there are legitimate competing solutions. "I'm sorry you feel that way" fails at the first so you haven't yet earned the right to disagree agreeably.
        otterley 6y ago
        What makes it complicated, though, is that some people interpret "I'm sorry" as an admission of guilt or agreement, so conservative lawyers and others recommend specifying what you feel sorry for so as to not give away the farm.
    - neonate 6y ago
      Yeah but not for a couple days. He got whipped by downvotes and left after a couple hours. Agreed about the sorry you feel part.
- vehementi 6y ago
  You're just full of misinformation, aren't you?
  - dang 6y ago
    Hey, please don't break the site guidelines even if another commenter is wrong (or you feel they are). This is particularly a bad way to defend someone because readers will instinctively take the other side in response to the personal attack. Instead, please provide correct information in a conversational way, like some of the sibling replies did. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- MintelIE 6y ago
  Is it possible to look too kindly at somebody? I think so. Clearly the CEO is backpedaling now that there's been a public outcry. He's not sorry about what he did. He's sad he got caught.
  - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
    What's the penalty for looking too kindly at somebody in this context?
    - MintelIE 6y ago
      One continues to be taken advantage of, over and over again. Assuming good faith is not prudent when dealing with people who want your money or data. We have enough collective experience at this stage to say this conclusively. Edit: Being cynical is the new normal when dealing with companies. Especially if they have your data, or want it.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        You’re assuming ill intent on a new company. To be so cynical is not a good way to view things in life. Also, they don’t want my money. You literally pay nothing to use them; they get paid (a one time lump sum) by the company who hires you
        skinkestek 6y ago
        Think of it this way: If someone I trusted with my data doxxes me it doesn't matter if they do it for free! Yes, we know they weren't doing it for the goodness in their hearts, but there's a huge leap between - using what they know about me to sell services to others (classic Google) - and outright selling/publishing my data to others There's a reason why I still - despite all my dislike for Google - still respect them somewhat: they actually seems to try to guard their treasure chest of juicy customer data against both governments as well as everyone else, they seem to be in this for the long haul. Edit: try to avoid being rude / abrasive
- wolfgang42 6y ago
  Quick correction: > spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it. It was actually a only a couple of hours and a few (very inflammatory and highly downvoted) comments, near the beginning of the thread, and then radio silence as the fire raged on. I think that he took a step back and began reconsidering after realizing that his comments weren’t helping any, but because they were the only thing he said in that thread and a lot of discussion was focused on them it seemed like a lot more activity than it really was. (Not that this excuses anything, but I think it’s important to be clear about what happened.)
  - bigiain 6y ago
    I suspect the board and/or legal and/or investors confiscated all his devices and put him in total lockdown...
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  > He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar This confuses me. What big payout could they have gotten from making this public?
rammy1234 6y ago
At this point in time it doesn't matter if there is an apology or not. Like above mentioned, some would have got laid-off or for some their intentions of job search is revealed. This is much worst of an effect that an apology would do any good. He apologized so what. It is good but damage is done. Can anything be about it ?
- californical 6y ago
  It wasn't just an apology -- they reversed the decision before it happened, preventing any damage. I was also furious when I found out, and still am upset at how they went about this situation in the beginning. They could've handled it much better. But they did what the community asked for, and nobody was harmed in the end. I would argue that this was the system actually working. I think we should incourage good behavior, instead of being totally unforgiving of all mistakes. Hopefully other companies can learn a lesson from Triplebyte and think twice before making this mistake at all in the future. I'm still not sure if I'm going to keep my account with them, but I do feel better about it
  - RobertRoberts 6y ago
    "...and nobody was harmed in the end" Consider how you would feel if a credit card or a bank did this? Would you ever trust them again? No, you would not.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    With your attitude, someone could try to something sneaky and dishonest like TripleByte did, but as long as they walk back on it eventually, it's all good. Why wouldn't another company first try to push privacy violating changes on a Friday, when people like you are so willing to turn a blind eye to it if they get caught? They violated trust and it's going to take a lot more than an email apology to get it back from people who care.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Did you read his comments here (on this thread)? It was that they were rushing to have this feature done earlier, but missed the deadline.
rammy1234 6y ago
How could a CEO the one major feature they were trying to do can't think something which many caught that upfront. Its not like something, that was caught after 2 months or 2 years of a change, it was caught and discussed immediately after the announcement.
wyck 6y ago
This isn't just a whoopsy mistake, this is a drastically stupid decision that brings the whole business into question. This wasn't really a technical mistake, this is bad leadership mixed with bad procedures. When you drive you boat into the ground because your "not thinking" as the captain, it doesn't remove the fact that you drove a boat into the ground. Irresponsible would be an under statement, it would be more appropriate to call this moronic.

treis 6y ago

It would have gone over a lot better if he didn't spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it. And it would have gone over a lot better if he was honest about what happened. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he's all "was that wrong? Should I not have done that?". They knew exactly what they were doing and calculated that it was worth it.

photonios 6y ago
I can see how that conclusion gets drawn. Any new feature that is announced can be met with some negativity. Sometimes it just ends up working despite that. It is not surprising to me that at first, they tried to defend their plans. It probably took a while for the backslash to sink in and their own opinions to change. I wouldn't expect every company, even ones that target HN's primary audience to turn everything around right away because of an angry thread within a few hours. They turned around in 2-3 days. Quick enough if you ask me. Disclaimer: I am really not in any way affiliated with Triplebyte. I am not even a user/customer. I just see a lot of negativity that I that I find unjustified.
- treis 6y ago
  Nobody is mad about a "feature". They're mad because Triplebyte made sensitive private data public.
  - RobertRoberts 6y ago
    This ^. This is the issue. Calling it only a "feature" is just downright twisting the facts.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    They're mad because Triplebyte made sensitive private data public. And engaged in a host of dark patterns that made it difficult for people to effectively respond to that, for example by getting the data deleted and cancelling any account they had. The problem wasn't just the original error in judgement, serious as that was. It was the doubling down on it in both the implementation and the handling of the criticism when it was announced.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Except they didn’t make any data public. Yes, they were going to, but they hadn’t yet.
username3 6y ago
He didn't spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it.
- JshWright 6y ago
  He certainly spent a great deal of time saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" (a classic non-apology... there's no better way to make a bad situation worse than by starting off with those words).
  - otterley 6y ago
    I interpret such a statement as expressing sympathy with someone's point of view, but also disagreeing with it.
    - nogabebop23 6y ago
      It's pretty well understood by people far less experienced than the CEO (i.e. me) that you need to split those messages up. Empathy is unconditional. It says "wow, that must be really painful/terrible/scary". It carries no judgement around the accuracy of such feelings, only an understanding that they are real for the other person. Disagreeing comes later after you have shown there are legitimate competing solutions. "I'm sorry you feel that way" fails at the first so you haven't yet earned the right to disagree agreeably.
      - otterley 6y ago
        What makes it complicated, though, is that some people interpret "I'm sorry" as an admission of guilt or agreement, so conservative lawyers and others recommend specifying what you feel sorry for so as to not give away the farm.
  - neonate 6y ago
    Yeah but not for a couple days. He got whipped by downvotes and left after a couple hours. Agreed about the sorry you feel part.
vehementi 6y ago
You're just full of misinformation, aren't you?
- dang 6y ago
  Hey, please don't break the site guidelines even if another commenter is wrong (or you feel they are). This is particularly a bad way to defend someone because readers will instinctively take the other side in response to the personal attack. Instead, please provide correct information in a conversational way, like some of the sibling replies did. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
MintelIE 6y ago
Is it possible to look too kindly at somebody? I think so. Clearly the CEO is backpedaling now that there's been a public outcry. He's not sorry about what he did. He's sad he got caught.
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
  What's the penalty for looking too kindly at somebody in this context?
  - MintelIE 6y ago
    One continues to be taken advantage of, over and over again. Assuming good faith is not prudent when dealing with people who want your money or data. We have enough collective experience at this stage to say this conclusively. Edit: Being cynical is the new normal when dealing with companies. Especially if they have your data, or want it.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      You’re assuming ill intent on a new company. To be so cynical is not a good way to view things in life. Also, they don’t want my money. You literally pay nothing to use them; they get paid (a one time lump sum) by the company who hires you
      - skinkestek 6y ago
        Think of it this way: If someone I trusted with my data doxxes me it doesn't matter if they do it for free! Yes, we know they weren't doing it for the goodness in their hearts, but there's a huge leap between - using what they know about me to sell services to others (classic Google) - and outright selling/publishing my data to others There's a reason why I still - despite all my dislike for Google - still respect them somewhat: they actually seems to try to guard their treasure chest of juicy customer data against both governments as well as everyone else, they seem to be in this for the long haul. Edit: try to avoid being rude / abrasive
wolfgang42 6y ago
Quick correction: > spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it. It was actually a only a couple of hours and a few (very inflammatory and highly downvoted) comments, near the beginning of the thread, and then radio silence as the fire raged on. I think that he took a step back and began reconsidering after realizing that his comments weren’t helping any, but because they were the only thing he said in that thread and a lot of discussion was focused on them it seemed like a lot more activity than it really was. (Not that this excuses anything, but I think it’s important to be clear about what happened.)
- bigiain 6y ago
  I suspect the board and/or legal and/or investors confiscated all his devices and put him in total lockdown...
BurningFrog 6y ago
> He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar This confuses me. What big payout could they have gotten from making this public?

rammy1234 6y ago

At this point in time it doesn't matter if there is an apology or not. Like above mentioned, some would have got laid-off or for some their intentions of job search is revealed. This is much worst of an effect that an apology would do any good. He apologized so what. It is good but damage is done. Can anything be about it ?

californical 6y ago
It wasn't just an apology -- they reversed the decision before it happened, preventing any damage. I was also furious when I found out, and still am upset at how they went about this situation in the beginning. They could've handled it much better. But they did what the community asked for, and nobody was harmed in the end. I would argue that this was the system actually working. I think we should incourage good behavior, instead of being totally unforgiving of all mistakes. Hopefully other companies can learn a lesson from Triplebyte and think twice before making this mistake at all in the future. I'm still not sure if I'm going to keep my account with them, but I do feel better about it
- RobertRoberts 6y ago
  "...and nobody was harmed in the end" Consider how you would feel if a credit card or a bank did this? Would you ever trust them again? No, you would not.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  With your attitude, someone could try to something sneaky and dishonest like TripleByte did, but as long as they walk back on it eventually, it's all good. Why wouldn't another company first try to push privacy violating changes on a Friday, when people like you are so willing to turn a blind eye to it if they get caught? They violated trust and it's going to take a lot more than an email apology to get it back from people who care.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Did you read his comments here (on this thread)? It was that they were rushing to have this feature done earlier, but missed the deadline.

rammy1234 6y ago

How could a CEO the one major feature they were trying to do can't think something which many caught that upfront. Its not like something, that was caught after 2 months or 2 years of a change, it was caught and discussed immediately after the announcement.

wyck 6y ago

This isn't just a whoopsy mistake, this is a drastically stupid decision that brings the whole business into question. This wasn't really a technical mistake, this is bad leadership mixed with bad procedures. When you drive you boat into the ground because your "not thinking" as the captain, it doesn't remove the fact that you drove a boat into the ground. Irresponsible would be an under statement, it would be more appropriate to call this moronic.