5 ms·

You can let a mistake go or you can go on a crusade. It does seem like fighting with perceived enemies is good for brand building though. They always need an en

You can let a mistake go or you can go on a crusade. It does seem like fighting with perceived enemies is good for brand building though. They always need an enemy: big sugar, big tech, big something or other.

sdoering 5y ago
So the company should have let the error pass and not answer with additional legal threats? Or should Doctorow just ignored the not so thinly veiled (and wrongly made) threats. Should a journalist not call into question wrong conduct by a company?
- waffle_maniac 5y ago
  > I named both the Pixsy employee who threatened me and their supervisor, who apologized but refused to answer my questions about how these threats came to be sent, and whether Pixsy was a company that made a practice out of copyleft trolling. They did apologize and his demands were rejected because, really, it was more like a fishing expedition. He then escalated the situation because he couldn't accept their apology and thought it was part of a wider conspiracy. They responded in kind. So much drama over nothing.
  - sdoering 5y ago
    > They responded in kind? Replying with additional legal threats isn't what I would call "responding in kind". But to quote the original article: "I am happy to report I have removed the names of your employees from my article. I don’t do this because you threatened me, but because I am an ethical person, and ethical people do not deliberately seek to cause distress in others (for example, by sending thousands upon thousands of unethical legal threats)."
    - waffle_maniac 5y ago
      Legal threat is a temper tantrum in this case. They are sparring pointlessly.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Fishing for people's money by sending out a large number of potentially fraudulent legal threats in order to obtain a minority of payments out of fearful people isn't much different morally than a scammer sending out thousands of fraudulent threats to cut off people's power in order to get a minority to pay up. A criminal protection racket that is rarely on the side of right on any more than the most technical terms and often not even that isn't owed a nice response to their threats any more than a burglar is owed a fresh cup of coffee and a pleasant work environment while he loads your stuff into a moving van.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
“Crusades” against malicious actors are arguably warranted (depending on your mental model and belief system); that’s a bit of a loaded term though. Properly framed, it’s vigilant accountability of bad actors. Otherwise, these actors inflict emotional/financial pain and suffering on the unsophisticated or those unequipped to defend themselves for profit and/or power. I won’t enumerate the examples here; they are numerous and readily available for studying. Higher level, malicious actors don’t hold themselves accountable. Perhaps there are so many “Big” issues because of those taking advantage of dysfunctional systems.
zaptheimpaler 5y ago
If Pixsy really does copyright troll people, then they will continue to do so unless someone picks up the crusade as you call it. Arguably building an email/forum/phonecall spam filter or fighting more serious offenses like over prescribing dangerous drugs, or nursing homes that take control of their residents assets and sell them is just crusading as well. Unethical or outright criminal people usually don't stop in the absence of consequences.

sdoering 5y ago

So the company should have let the error pass and not answer with additional legal threats? Or should Doctorow just ignored the not so thinly veiled (and wrongly made) threats. Should a journalist not call into question wrong conduct by a company?

waffle_maniac 5y ago
> I named both the Pixsy employee who threatened me and their supervisor, who apologized but refused to answer my questions about how these threats came to be sent, and whether Pixsy was a company that made a practice out of copyleft trolling. They did apologize and his demands were rejected because, really, it was more like a fishing expedition. He then escalated the situation because he couldn't accept their apology and thought it was part of a wider conspiracy. They responded in kind. So much drama over nothing.
- sdoering 5y ago
  > They responded in kind? Replying with additional legal threats isn't what I would call "responding in kind". But to quote the original article: "I am happy to report I have removed the names of your employees from my article. I don’t do this because you threatened me, but because I am an ethical person, and ethical people do not deliberately seek to cause distress in others (for example, by sending thousands upon thousands of unethical legal threats)."
  - waffle_maniac 5y ago
    Legal threat is a temper tantrum in this case. They are sparring pointlessly.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Fishing for people's money by sending out a large number of potentially fraudulent legal threats in order to obtain a minority of payments out of fearful people isn't much different morally than a scammer sending out thousands of fraudulent threats to cut off people's power in order to get a minority to pay up. A criminal protection racket that is rarely on the side of right on any more than the most technical terms and often not even that isn't owed a nice response to their threats any more than a burglar is owed a fresh cup of coffee and a pleasant work environment while he loads your stuff into a moving van.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

“Crusades” against malicious actors are arguably warranted (depending on your mental model and belief system); that’s a bit of a loaded term though. Properly framed, it’s vigilant accountability of bad actors. Otherwise, these actors inflict emotional/financial pain and suffering on the unsophisticated or those unequipped to defend themselves for profit and/or power. I won’t enumerate the examples here; they are numerous and readily available for studying. Higher level, malicious actors don’t hold themselves accountable. Perhaps there are so many “Big” issues because of those taking advantage of dysfunctional systems.

zaptheimpaler 5y ago

If Pixsy really does copyright troll people, then they will continue to do so unless someone picks up the crusade as you call it. Arguably building an email/forum/phonecall spam filter or fighting more serious offenses like over prescribing dangerous drugs, or nursing homes that take control of their residents assets and sell them is just crusading as well. Unethical or outright criminal people usually don't stop in the absence of consequences.