6 ms·

It's incredibly tiresome that the first post on HN whenever a company does a press release is going to be from someone who will never be happy no matter what wa

It's incredibly tiresome that the first post on HN whenever a company does a press release is going to be from someone who will never be happy no matter what was said. "What does take responsibility mean?" "This is just PR fluff". "They are just saving face." Criticism of good things because the poster didn't like the motivation. Stuff like that. Did you really think the company was going to bare their soul to you like you were their psychiatrist or their priest? Do you think you are even entitled to that? Commenting about whether or not this is a good decision is valuable. Complaining about the content of PR fluff is not.

ljm 4y ago
Cynicism is cheap
genmud 4y ago
These decisions should never have seen the light of day, let alone a policy that was communicated in the way they did. Why should we cheer on PR and product folks trying to break their fucking arms patting themselves on the back for walking back an incredibly disruptive, short sighted and user-hostile decision?
- PUSH_AX 4y ago
  Because A) of all the permutations of follow up decisions that could have been made, this falls on the "good choice" side, and B) this isn't "pat on the back" situation, this is a save face situation.
fwlr 4y ago
It’s no more or less tiresome than a press release is itself. Whatever the material contents, a press release has “positivity” set to 1.0 (or as close to 1.0 as permitted by law and professional standards). This upsets the balance of the world, and that balance can be restored by submitting a reply with “positivity” set to 0.0 (or as close to 0.0 as permitted by law and standards of etiquette). Analogous to “someone who will never be happy no matter what was said”, the tone of the press release will always be happy no matter what they have to say. It seems very natural - almost inevitable, even - that someone will reply to an artificially max-positive document with an artificially max-negative comment. (Personally, I made peace with the tiresome nature of both press releases and critical replies by viewing it as an informal application of Laplace’s Rule - add one success and one failure to the total count to more accurately estimate the real underlying probability. The press release presents one observation guaranteed to be as positive as possible, and the inevitable critical reply presents another observation guaranteed to be as negative as possible, so with those two in hand you can look at other observations and get a better final estimation.)
- twblalock 4y ago
  The press release also contains actual information that is relevant -- in this case, that free teams is not being sunset. The reflexive complaints about press releases don't have that value.
  - genmud 4y ago
    Without making any commitments that they won't at some point in the future undo that decision, that they see the importance of why there are free accounts, or what they are doing to ensure that community feedback is incorporated into their plans before they make decisions. Sure, they changed course on this single decision, but they haven't addressed the situation that allowed this to even take place, nor does it look like they are planning on it.
    - justin_oaks 4y ago
      Let's be clear here. Even if a company commits to something in a public statement, it's no guarantee. Even if the writer of the post explains lessons learned and policy changes they're making, it's no guarantee. The people who learned the lessons can leave the company. Policies can be changed at a moment's notice or simply never be enforced. The best anyone will get is a contract that can be legally enforced, and that won't ever happen for free users.
  - fwlr 4y ago
    (I edited my comment as you were replying, sorry about that.) If the reflexive maximally-negative complaints are contradicting the actual information presented, they had better come with strong evidence or I’m dismissing them (and I do find those comments more tiresome than press releases or the other negative replies; they come across as conspiratorial crank-cases with an axe to grind, even bordering on spam to my mind). The comments I had in mind are “the most negative interpretation of the information that comports with the facts”, much like the non-information components of the press release are the most positive interpretation of the information that comports with the facts. A press release contains info and fluff. The opposite of soft fluff is hard edges, so perhaps a cute and pithy summary of my view is that no fluffy PR statement is complete without an edgy reply.
user3939382 4y ago
We have been conditioned to think it's acceptable, because it's now normal, to live in a society where we're constantly deceived and lied to. Everything is marketing, PR, spin. From all the corporations that control so much of our lives, the government, science, medicine, religion. Every major institution in our society. Every message has to be carefully parsed and squinted at, one always has to deduce what might have been the (truthful, real, honest) conversation behind closed doors that produced what we're hearing or reading. From every message it is possible to know only one thing: what the author wants us to think. What is real is almost always another story. That is tiresome. Related clip from Crazy People https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyNPoI17rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyNPoI17rE
- twblalock 4y ago
  PR exists because honesty and frankness are punished in our society and people will jump at any opportunity to prosecute or sue. The result is PR fluff, endless disclaimers, and announcements with as little detail of the internal workings of a decision as possible which need to pass through review by legal and finance teams. But we all know that, right? We don't need to pretend like we don't, or act like we are offended by it, as if it's the first press release we've ever seen.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    You’re not wrong. But I’d add: benefits are always motivations. It’s easier to deceive, which is what PR is, but it’s also profitable. We can’t blame people for complaining that they’re being deceived just because it’s common.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    thats not true, honesty is valued, but what PR does is attempt to lie and spin things in a way that misleads a stupid audience into thinking that something else is happening, and this can be beneficial. this is why lying exists, because the ones doing the lying thinks it benefits them over telling the truth. PR is lies, spindoctors are liars and scammers
  - 4y ago
QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
The original announcement was such that no followup would make people happy. It's not fair that you can mess up badly enough that even with perfect play, total recovery is not possible. Life is not fair.
- redeeman 4y ago
  why isnt that fair though? this is the same for everyone?
icelancer 4y ago
Same with layoffs and everything else. The CEO could take a 100% paycut, relinquish all of his shares, take 20 lashes on the back, and fire himself yet the top comments will always be about "oh so this is taking responsibility huh, how about not screwing it up in the first place???" It's a tired act.
- danielheath 4y ago
  > The CEO could take a 100% paycut, relinquish all of his shares, take 20 lashes on the back, and fire himself yet the top comments will always be about "oh so this is taking responsibility huh, how about not screwing it up in the first place???" Interesting theory, but it doesn't match my experience - the only time I've ever seen a thread about a (japanese) CEO doing those things the comments were closer to "why can't our (USA) business leaders behave like this".
Trufa 4y ago
For me the sad part, is that they reacted to give what the community wants and that’s not enough. It pays to be negative here.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
If you want to hear the positives of something hang out with business people. If you want to hear a bunch of bitching about how literally everything is not good enough, hang out with engineers. We don’t get paid to shoot rainbows up everyone’s ass, we get paid to point out what’s broken and fix it.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > We don’t get paid to shoot rainbows up everyone’s ass, we get paid to point out what’s broken and fix it. (I don’t disagree with your point at all but …) I’m reasonably sure many of us get paid to do both, sometimes simultaneously to satisfy various undue optimisms, and other times encapsulating our pessimisms from certain audiences.
themitigating 4y ago
Do people realize that it's analogous to being polite?
barrysteve 4y ago
Parent poster was expressing distrust. I get it. There's emotional turbulence from flip-flopping on a important decision within a week. The tiresome aspect is also putting his own words into the CEO's mouth, to make his point. Even though parent poster is probably somewhat right and we are feeling similarly, the cynicism shines through.
Perseids 4y ago
Don't understand your parent comment as something insightful or with good information density. Its function is cultural. We need reminders from time to time that corporations default to evil if not left unchecked. We need rally points to assure us that we are not alone in condemning corporate greed and ruthlessness, in fighting against neo-liberalism. If you just accept the status quo without any form of pushback, you risk leaving the fine line of realism and stray into complicity. And you are right, nothing that they would realistically have said would have satisfied me. But that is because they have set themselves up for failure long before. Quoting from GordonS above [1]: > I get what you are saying, but I gave little sympathy for their situation - they used the VC tactic of "give it away to gain and monopolise the market, then do the old switcheroo once we're #1", so they had to know what was coming. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35296527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35296527

ljm 4y ago

Cynicism is cheap

genmud 4y ago

These decisions should never have seen the light of day, let alone a policy that was communicated in the way they did. Why should we cheer on PR and product folks trying to break their fucking arms patting themselves on the back for walking back an incredibly disruptive, short sighted and user-hostile decision?

PUSH_AX 4y ago
Because A) of all the permutations of follow up decisions that could have been made, this falls on the "good choice" side, and B) this isn't "pat on the back" situation, this is a save face situation.

fwlr 4y ago

It’s no more or less tiresome than a press release is itself. Whatever the material contents, a press release has “positivity” set to 1.0 (or as close to 1.0 as permitted by law and professional standards). This upsets the balance of the world, and that balance can be restored by submitting a reply with “positivity” set to 0.0 (or as close to 0.0 as permitted by law and standards of etiquette). Analogous to “someone who will never be happy no matter what was said”, the tone of the press release will always be happy no matter what they have to say. It seems very natural - almost inevitable, even - that someone will reply to an artificially max-positive document with an artificially max-negative comment. (Personally, I made peace with the tiresome nature of both press releases and critical replies by viewing it as an informal application of Laplace’s Rule - add one success and one failure to the total count to more accurately estimate the real underlying probability. The press release presents one observation guaranteed to be as positive as possible, and the inevitable critical reply presents another observation guaranteed to be as negative as possible, so with those two in hand you can look at other observations and get a better final estimation.)

twblalock 4y ago
The press release also contains actual information that is relevant -- in this case, that free teams is not being sunset. The reflexive complaints about press releases don't have that value.
- genmud 4y ago
  Without making any commitments that they won't at some point in the future undo that decision, that they see the importance of why there are free accounts, or what they are doing to ensure that community feedback is incorporated into their plans before they make decisions. Sure, they changed course on this single decision, but they haven't addressed the situation that allowed this to even take place, nor does it look like they are planning on it.
  - justin_oaks 4y ago
    Let's be clear here. Even if a company commits to something in a public statement, it's no guarantee. Even if the writer of the post explains lessons learned and policy changes they're making, it's no guarantee. The people who learned the lessons can leave the company. Policies can be changed at a moment's notice or simply never be enforced. The best anyone will get is a contract that can be legally enforced, and that won't ever happen for free users.
- fwlr 4y ago
  (I edited my comment as you were replying, sorry about that.) If the reflexive maximally-negative complaints are contradicting the actual information presented, they had better come with strong evidence or I’m dismissing them (and I do find those comments more tiresome than press releases or the other negative replies; they come across as conspiratorial crank-cases with an axe to grind, even bordering on spam to my mind). The comments I had in mind are “the most negative interpretation of the information that comports with the facts”, much like the non-information components of the press release are the most positive interpretation of the information that comports with the facts. A press release contains info and fluff. The opposite of soft fluff is hard edges, so perhaps a cute and pithy summary of my view is that no fluffy PR statement is complete without an edgy reply.

user3939382 4y ago

We have been conditioned to think it's acceptable, because it's now normal, to live in a society where we're constantly deceived and lied to. Everything is marketing, PR, spin. From all the corporations that control so much of our lives, the government, science, medicine, religion. Every major institution in our society. Every message has to be carefully parsed and squinted at, one always has to deduce what might have been the (truthful, real, honest) conversation behind closed doors that produced what we're hearing or reading. From every message it is possible to know only one thing: what the author wants us to think. What is real is almost always another story. That is tiresome. Related clip from Crazy People https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyNPoI17rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyNPoI17rE

twblalock 4y ago
PR exists because honesty and frankness are punished in our society and people will jump at any opportunity to prosecute or sue. The result is PR fluff, endless disclaimers, and announcements with as little detail of the internal workings of a decision as possible which need to pass through review by legal and finance teams. But we all know that, right? We don't need to pretend like we don't, or act like we are offended by it, as if it's the first press release we've ever seen.
- user3939382 4y ago
  You’re not wrong. But I’d add: benefits are always motivations. It’s easier to deceive, which is what PR is, but it’s also profitable. We can’t blame people for complaining that they’re being deceived just because it’s common.
- redeeman 4y ago
  thats not true, honesty is valued, but what PR does is attempt to lie and spin things in a way that misleads a stupid audience into thinking that something else is happening, and this can be beneficial. this is why lying exists, because the ones doing the lying thinks it benefits them over telling the truth. PR is lies, spindoctors are liars and scammers
- 4y ago

QuadmasterXLII 4y ago

The original announcement was such that no followup would make people happy. It's not fair that you can mess up badly enough that even with perfect play, total recovery is not possible. Life is not fair.

redeeman 4y ago
why isnt that fair though? this is the same for everyone?

icelancer 4y ago

Same with layoffs and everything else. The CEO could take a 100% paycut, relinquish all of his shares, take 20 lashes on the back, and fire himself yet the top comments will always be about "oh so this is taking responsibility huh, how about not screwing it up in the first place???" It's a tired act.

danielheath 4y ago
> The CEO could take a 100% paycut, relinquish all of his shares, take 20 lashes on the back, and fire himself yet the top comments will always be about "oh so this is taking responsibility huh, how about not screwing it up in the first place???" Interesting theory, but it doesn't match my experience - the only time I've ever seen a thread about a (japanese) CEO doing those things the comments were closer to "why can't our (USA) business leaders behave like this".

Trufa 4y ago

For me the sad part, is that they reacted to give what the community wants and that’s not enough. It pays to be negative here.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

If you want to hear the positives of something hang out with business people. If you want to hear a bunch of bitching about how literally everything is not good enough, hang out with engineers. We don’t get paid to shoot rainbows up everyone’s ass, we get paid to point out what’s broken and fix it.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
> We don’t get paid to shoot rainbows up everyone’s ass, we get paid to point out what’s broken and fix it. (I don’t disagree with your point at all but …) I’m reasonably sure many of us get paid to do both, sometimes simultaneously to satisfy various undue optimisms, and other times encapsulating our pessimisms from certain audiences.

themitigating 4y ago

Do people realize that it's analogous to being polite?

barrysteve 4y ago

Parent poster was expressing distrust. I get it. There's emotional turbulence from flip-flopping on a important decision within a week. The tiresome aspect is also putting his own words into the CEO's mouth, to make his point. Even though parent poster is probably somewhat right and we are feeling similarly, the cynicism shines through.

Perseids 4y ago

Don't understand your parent comment as something insightful or with good information density. Its function is cultural. We need reminders from time to time that corporations default to evil if not left unchecked. We need rally points to assure us that we are not alone in condemning corporate greed and ruthlessness, in fighting against neo-liberalism. If you just accept the status quo without any form of pushback, you risk leaving the fine line of realism and stray into complicity. And you are right, nothing that they would realistically have said would have satisfied me. But that is because they have set themselves up for failure long before. Quoting from GordonS above [1]: > I get what you are saying, but I gave little sympathy for their situation - they used the VC tactic of "give it away to gain and monopolise the market, then do the old switcheroo once we're #1", so they had to know what was coming. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35296527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35296527