4 ms·
I didn't say they should get the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear cut, there's little doubt to be had. But we have no idea how they'll remedy the situat
by a2800276 4y ago
I didn't say they should get the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear cut, there's little doubt to be had.
But we have no idea how they'll remedy the situation, because the situation has, in all likelyhood, not been pointed out to them at this point in time.
And it's highly unlikely that their "small army of lawyers and dedicated compliance officers" would knowingly allow this. Therefore I doubt the situation is the result of actively malicious behavior.
- s_dev 4y ago>I didn't say they should get the benefit of the doubt. >Therefore I doubt the situation is the result of actively malicious behavior. This is giving them the 'benefit of the doubt'.
- omniglottal 4y agoThis is innocence until proven guilty. Do you recommend another tactic?
- justinclift 4y agoHow about someone contacts them so this is moot? :)