6 ms·

> And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. This isn’t actually clear. GrubHub’s about page: “ Grubhub is a leading online a

> And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. This isn’t actually clear. GrubHub’s about page: “ Grubhub is a leading online and mobile food-ordering and delivery marketplace with the largest and most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. ” This tells me as a customer that the restaurant is a consenting partner. This is a lie. EDIT: a commentor below had issue with my use of the word lie here. To clarify, I meant that this is not a clear disclaimer.

judge2020 6y ago
> But that, of course, is not what any of these services do.
loceng 6y ago
No, you're misinterpreting it - they don't claim all of the restaurants are partners, just that they have the most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. Edit: -4 downvotes so far for highlighting a person's bad logic - good start to the New Year for critical thinking on HN; I'll assume they're projecting their anger for the topic onto me, their emotion overriding their logic.
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  Nowhere on their about page do they make it clear that they also have restaurants who are not their partners listed on their platform. The given ask that there is a clear disclaimer. I’m saying it’s not clear at all, and therefore the hypothetical has deviated from reality so much that it’s useless.
  - loceng 6y ago
    No, you're just not accepting in the statement you wrote what you claim it means is incorrect - you're now trying to double down that it's not clear but it is clear, you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely as your argument point but through extrapolation it's not necessary, assuming you're able to/have learned how to extrapolate. You really want everyone everywhere on the internet to spell out the complete logic, when the full logic can be understood simply by extrapolating, coddling people in the process?
    - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
      > you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely Yes because that’s what “clear disclaimer” means, which was the ask. I’m really baffled that this line of logic, because the post I was responding to said “clear disclaimer”, when I’m pointing to something that requires second-order interpretation and therefore by definition can’t be a clear disclaimer. (I mean you yourself said that it’s understood by extrapolation. Requiring extrapolation =! clear disclaimer imo. I would in fact expect a clear disclaimer to require no extrapolation, and be so dumbly explained that anyone who can read at at teen level can understand it.)
      - loceng 6y ago
        You're changing the goal posts of your argument now. You claimed the statement was a lie, it wasn't - that is all I argued.
        SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
        Oh, okay, I’ve edited my post to say that “this is not a clear disclaimer”.
        refulgentis 6y ago
        Please try to avoid dragging interlocutors through long threads, knowing they'll be downvoted at each step - it was extremely clear from step 1 what they meant, you didn't need it clarified over several comments to reach this conclusion.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - jimktrains2 6y ago
      These are often termed lies of ommission, where details are left out to make what is said appear to be the full truth, and not just a slice of it. By only stating that they work with partners, they imply that they only work with partners.
- refulgentis 6y ago
  Been here 11 years, things have oddly gone off a cliff in the comments over the past 6 months - year: if you're not agreeing with the first-order conclusion, you're down-voted through the floor. sorry about that :/
  - loceng 6y ago
    And any attempt to discuss the voting mechanism to require more qualitative responses instead of a quick dopamine hit for clicking a single object, one needs to tread carefully - a rule that artificially oppresses conversation on the topic - so how important of an issue it is will be skewed due to the threat of being silenced.
    - refulgentis 6y ago
      Lol I'm at -7 now, cheers my friend
- nirushiv 6y ago
  There are different types of lies. A lie of commission would be like Grubhub saying “All restaurants are our partners”. The second case (which applies here) is a lie by omission. They are withholding very important information in an intentional way. Since we’re on the topic of food: It’s like if someone asked, “Hey did you eat the whole pizza?” and you reply “I ate my three slices”. That’s true, except you also ate the other nine slices. Lie of omission. It’s not bad logic. It’s you failing to recognize a basic tactic used by companies and four year olds and everyone in between.
runarberg 6y ago
Response to edit: A lie by obfuscation, or a lie by misdirection is still a lie. If you set something up so it is easy to believe a thing, without ever stating that thing, you are still lying, it is just not obvious that you are.
fragmede 6y ago
There's also a matter of SEO. Grubhub is an extremely popular website who's pages will far exceed the restaurant's own webpage's rank, so even when searching for local restaurant store by name, the grubhub page will feature prominently, despite having no relation to the restaurant.

judge2020 6y ago

> But that, of course, is not what any of these services do.

loceng 6y ago

No, you're misinterpreting it - they don't claim all of the restaurants are partners, just that they have the most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. Edit: -4 downvotes so far for highlighting a person's bad logic - good start to the New Year for critical thinking on HN; I'll assume they're projecting their anger for the topic onto me, their emotion overriding their logic.

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
Nowhere on their about page do they make it clear that they also have restaurants who are not their partners listed on their platform. The given ask that there is a clear disclaimer. I’m saying it’s not clear at all, and therefore the hypothetical has deviated from reality so much that it’s useless.
- loceng 6y ago
  No, you're just not accepting in the statement you wrote what you claim it means is incorrect - you're now trying to double down that it's not clear but it is clear, you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely as your argument point but through extrapolation it's not necessary, assuming you're able to/have learned how to extrapolate. You really want everyone everywhere on the internet to spell out the complete logic, when the full logic can be understood simply by extrapolating, coddling people in the process?
  - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
    > you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely Yes because that’s what “clear disclaimer” means, which was the ask. I’m really baffled that this line of logic, because the post I was responding to said “clear disclaimer”, when I’m pointing to something that requires second-order interpretation and therefore by definition can’t be a clear disclaimer. (I mean you yourself said that it’s understood by extrapolation. Requiring extrapolation =! clear disclaimer imo. I would in fact expect a clear disclaimer to require no extrapolation, and be so dumbly explained that anyone who can read at at teen level can understand it.)
    - loceng 6y ago
      You're changing the goal posts of your argument now. You claimed the statement was a lie, it wasn't - that is all I argued.
      - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
        Oh, okay, I’ve edited my post to say that “this is not a clear disclaimer”.
        refulgentis 6y ago
        Please try to avoid dragging interlocutors through long threads, knowing they'll be downvoted at each step - it was extremely clear from step 1 what they meant, you didn't need it clarified over several comments to reach this conclusion.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    These are often termed lies of ommission, where details are left out to make what is said appear to be the full truth, and not just a slice of it. By only stating that they work with partners, they imply that they only work with partners.
refulgentis 6y ago
Been here 11 years, things have oddly gone off a cliff in the comments over the past 6 months - year: if you're not agreeing with the first-order conclusion, you're down-voted through the floor. sorry about that :/
- loceng 6y ago
  And any attempt to discuss the voting mechanism to require more qualitative responses instead of a quick dopamine hit for clicking a single object, one needs to tread carefully - a rule that artificially oppresses conversation on the topic - so how important of an issue it is will be skewed due to the threat of being silenced.
  - refulgentis 6y ago
    Lol I'm at -7 now, cheers my friend
nirushiv 6y ago
There are different types of lies. A lie of commission would be like Grubhub saying “All restaurants are our partners”. The second case (which applies here) is a lie by omission. They are withholding very important information in an intentional way. Since we’re on the topic of food: It’s like if someone asked, “Hey did you eat the whole pizza?” and you reply “I ate my three slices”. That’s true, except you also ate the other nine slices. Lie of omission. It’s not bad logic. It’s you failing to recognize a basic tactic used by companies and four year olds and everyone in between.

runarberg 6y ago

Response to edit: A lie by obfuscation, or a lie by misdirection is still a lie. If you set something up so it is easy to believe a thing, without ever stating that thing, you are still lying, it is just not obvious that you are.

fragmede 6y ago

There's also a matter of SEO. Grubhub is an extremely popular website who's pages will far exceed the restaurant's own webpage's rank, so even when searching for local restaurant store by name, the grubhub page will feature prominently, despite having no relation to the restaurant.