4 ms·

To be clear, I'm not accusing the poster of being a liar. But remember that companies are made of people, and it's not fair to accuse them of doing something ne

To be clear, I'm not accusing the poster of being a liar. But remember that companies are made of people, and it's not fair to accuse them of doing something nefarious, or perhaps even criminal, without at least a modicum of evidence. Social media is a powerful tool for generating both influence and motivation; we are not well-served by stirring up angry mobs over naked accusations, especially over something that might even be a misunderstanding.

cute_boi 5y ago
Companies tries to do many thing to hide crimes and its not the first time. Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook. And why do you need modicum when she has already mentioned fedex related thing and she is not the first one to find such issues?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Source? All I could find was: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/06/apple-pays-millions-woman-explicit-photos-posted-online/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/06/apple-pays-m... > The tech giant agreed a settlement with the 21-year-old after two employees at a repair facility uploaded the images from a phone she had sent to Apple to be fixed, resulting in “severe emotional distress”. > The incident emerged during a legal dispute between Pegatron, which had reimbursed Apple for the settlement, and its insurers, which in turn refused to foot the bill. Apple was not directly named in the lawsuit, and was referred to simply as a “customer” throughout, in an effort to keep the matter confidential. > And why do you need modicum when she has already mentioned fedex related thing and she is not the first one to find such issues? Because there is plenty of wrong information, whether misinformation or disinformation, flying around the internet. Perhaps even in your comment, when you claimed > Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-multimillion-iphone-nude-photos-privacy-settlement-pegatron https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-mult... > Apple paid an unknown multimillion-dollar sum to a woman after iPhone repair technicians uploaded nude photos from her phone to Facebook. The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name, and Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge. I think this will suffice. I read it and the verge seems to be legit thing to trust.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Did you even read my comment? I linked directly to the telegraph article that the Verge sources from. And you wrote that Apple paid the technicians who uploaded the woman’s media to Facebook, when that is not written anywhere. To summarize 1: you ask otterley why they would need a modicum of evidence to believe something 2: in the same comment, you post misinformation or disinformation 3: you are presented with a request for the source of the erroneous information you posted. You are also presented with a source regarding the same incident that portrays a different sequence of events. 4: you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed. 5: this is why otterley says you need a modicum of evidence
      - cute_boi 5y ago
        Ok, first of all you said its a misinformation and disinformation and I provided the verge link where they says exactly "Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge." And now you are saying "you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed." Yes it links back but it also mentions they have confirmed it with apple. You are intentionally trying to summarize in a way that favors you tbh . Also i trust verge over some random people on internet trying to say its misinformation or disinformation. And regarding the first one I already mentioned the fedex thing.
true_religion 5y ago
I'm willing to disambiguate between a company and its employees provided that the company identifies the employee by name, gives an appropriate punishment, and puts into place practices to mitigate damage in the future. Until they do, the company is represented by its employee. The 'corporate veil' works both ways after all.
- cgio 5y ago
  Even after identification the company still bears responsibility, given individuals act within processes and controls established by the company. If these are not sufficient (and that’s a very small if in the presence of faults) then the company is as culpable as the employee and is definitely the one who is culpable as far as the customer is concerned. The employee responsibility is for the company itself to pursue in a different process to making its customer whole.
Aeolun 5y ago
If your phone disappears after being delivered to the warehouse, what evidence would you like to see? There’s precious little you can show/do. Maybe a screenshot of an online delivery receipt?

cute_boi 5y ago

Companies tries to do many thing to hide crimes and its not the first time. Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook. And why do you need modicum when she has already mentioned fedex related thing and she is not the first one to find such issues?

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Source? All I could find was: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/06/apple-pays-millions-woman-explicit-photos-posted-online/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/06/apple-pays-m... > The tech giant agreed a settlement with the 21-year-old after two employees at a repair facility uploaded the images from a phone she had sent to Apple to be fixed, resulting in “severe emotional distress”. > The incident emerged during a legal dispute between Pegatron, which had reimbursed Apple for the settlement, and its insurers, which in turn refused to foot the bill. Apple was not directly named in the lawsuit, and was referred to simply as a “customer” throughout, in an effort to keep the matter confidential. > And why do you need modicum when she has already mentioned fedex related thing and she is not the first one to find such issues? Because there is plenty of wrong information, whether misinformation or disinformation, flying around the internet. Perhaps even in your comment, when you claimed > Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-multimillion-iphone-nude-photos-privacy-settlement-pegatron https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-mult... > Apple paid an unknown multimillion-dollar sum to a woman after iPhone repair technicians uploaded nude photos from her phone to Facebook. The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name, and Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge. I think this will suffice. I read it and the verge seems to be legit thing to trust.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Did you even read my comment? I linked directly to the telegraph article that the Verge sources from. And you wrote that Apple paid the technicians who uploaded the woman’s media to Facebook, when that is not written anywhere. To summarize 1: you ask otterley why they would need a modicum of evidence to believe something 2: in the same comment, you post misinformation or disinformation 3: you are presented with a request for the source of the erroneous information you posted. You are also presented with a source regarding the same incident that portrays a different sequence of events. 4: you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed. 5: this is why otterley says you need a modicum of evidence
    - cute_boi 5y ago
      Ok, first of all you said its a misinformation and disinformation and I provided the verge link where they says exactly "Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge." And now you are saying "you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed." Yes it links back but it also mentions they have confirmed it with apple. You are intentionally trying to summarize in a way that favors you tbh . Also i trust verge over some random people on internet trying to say its misinformation or disinformation. And regarding the first one I already mentioned the fedex thing.

true_religion 5y ago

I'm willing to disambiguate between a company and its employees provided that the company identifies the employee by name, gives an appropriate punishment, and puts into place practices to mitigate damage in the future. Until they do, the company is represented by its employee. The 'corporate veil' works both ways after all.

cgio 5y ago
Even after identification the company still bears responsibility, given individuals act within processes and controls established by the company. If these are not sufficient (and that’s a very small if in the presence of faults) then the company is as culpable as the employee and is definitely the one who is culpable as far as the customer is concerned. The employee responsibility is for the company itself to pursue in a different process to making its customer whole.

Aeolun 5y ago

If your phone disappears after being delivered to the warehouse, what evidence would you like to see? There’s precious little you can show/do. Maybe a screenshot of an online delivery receipt?