3 ms·
> I guess it was easier to take a slight (...) reputation hit, Not a reputation hit. A credibility hit. Essentially 100% of what they say now is lies to my e
by enriquto 5y ago
> I guess it was easier to take a slight (...) reputation hit,
Not a reputation hit. A credibility hit. Essentially 100% of what they say now is lies to my ears. If their policy is to lie to me "for the global good", this is the most rational position.
I'd have preferred if they had told the truth as they knew it (the disease is airborne, masks help you to avoid infect people, please leave all masks to health personnel, people who hoard masks will be severely punished).
- thathndude 5y agoPrecisely this. The occasional manipulation to try and prevent a run on toilet paper or gas stations is not worth a total loss of credibility.
- Fiahil 5y ago> I'd have preferred if they had told the truth as they knew it This is perfectly understandable, however, in this situation, the truth or any version of it weren't available. If you tell everyone that masks are the best way to avoid getting infected, but there is none available, then you are creating and invoking the worst case scenario immediately: No masks available for anyone, No idea when you will get shipments, and 60M panicked citizens to manage.
- axiosgunnar 5y agoStill better than living in a post-truth society.
- loup-vaillant 5y agoStill, they could have explicitly said two weeks later that they lied for our own good because of the shortage. We know they lied, so they could at least admit it and rebuild some good will.