2 ms·

Hello, author here. I accept that, and will try to write better in the future. However, I also subscribe to the philosophy that if nobody talks, who will? And

Hello, author here. I accept that, and will try to write better in the future. However, I also subscribe to the philosophy that if nobody talks, who will? And so if I have questions, I would rather raise them and be 25% wrong, than leave them undiscussed until they potentially hurt someone. At a minimum, everything gets clarified, I might look like an idiot, but there's still a clarity there that there wasn't previously. Though, as I will admit, my verbiage could be improved and I haven't resorted to having ChatGPT clean up my articles for me yet. > I expect an investigative piece to provide more facts and less speculation I can only speculate in the hopes that maybe someone, somewhere, will do a serious investigation. If you can, please do. Everything has to start somewhere though and it hurts to be first.

newaccount74 4y ago
I think your writing style is totally fine. If something feels icky and sounds like a fraud, it's fine to call it out, and use whatever words you want to do so.
- clnq 4y ago
  I don’t want my criticism to be misinterpreted. The issue with the article is that it is lacking in factual substance compared to strong condemning language and speculation. This makes it seem less credible. The choice of language in an isolated sense is fine. Unique writing styles can be more interesting to read, overall.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  > sounds like a fraud it doesn't sound like a fraud, unless you or OP have expertise or information that you're not sharing? Fraud is a crime, you should have a basis for declaring it. it might be a poor investment, it could be seen as signs of a shaky company, but accusing a people of fraud should have a basis. disclaimer: i have no relationship to this company whatsoever, including I'm not a customer. i just don't like seeing facially ill-informed piling on
  - newaccount74 4y ago
    > you should have a basis for declaring it This is not a court where we need to prove anything, it's just a discussion about a blog post. It's perfectly fine to say something sounds like a fraud based on limited knowledge. We shouldn't trust companies by default, just because they promise things that we want. If a company makes an investment offer that sounds a bit questionable, it's fine to say it sounds like fraud, even if we don't have any concrete evidence for it. It's on the company to provide information that makes them trustworthy. If their marketing materials are contradictive, or elude important info, that's more than enough to call them out for it. Did you read the Brydge story [1]? They started selling preorders for some product as recently as January, when they already ran out of cash. Judging from the "investor email", it sounds like Purism is doing the same thing, except they aren't selling preorders anymore, but just asking for cash instead. [1]: https://9to5mac.com/2023/05/04/brydge-keyboards-out-of-business-update/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/05/04/brydge-keyboards-out-of-busin...
    - clnq 4y ago
      By that definition of fraud (asking investors for cash repeatedly to not run out before turning a profit), many unicorn-status companies are fraud. It takes a long time to become profitable and I don’t see a problem if it’s not said that the company is.
      - gjsman-1000 4y ago
        Original writer here again. There is a difference here though, which is that those companies openly tell investors, "we're not profitable," and even have projections in their documentation for when they will be profitable assuming current growth continues. For example, Disney+ warns investors that it is not a profitable business but is trying to get to the point of profitability by the end of 2024. They also have regular public financial statements clearly outlining exactly how much revenue they received, expenses they paid for, and profits received if any. Now, sometimes these projections are... very optimistic like Spotify; but they are still there and check many legal boxes. Unprofitability is not a concern if it is disclosed. Basically anything is OK if there is clear and full disclosure. Purism does not have a disclosure anywhere saying whether this is, or is not, true. You are just left to assume that the company is solid, happy, and solvent without much substance that I could find (not even the most basic Profit/Loss statement), unless I missed some obvious documentation.
clnq 4y ago
I appreciate your openness to feedback and encourage you to delve deeper into the subjects of your articles moving forward. Consider alternative perspectives, and attempt to steel-man the position opposite to the one you wish to present. As you mention ChatGPT, GPT can assist in providing counterarguments, helping you see the fuller picture. Keep in mind that condemning articles can have consequences. While Librem could hurt their investors — the risk is actually inevitable in most businesses, your blog can also harm those striving towards a noble cause. Best of luck with your future articles.
- hitekker 4y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

newaccount74 4y ago

I think your writing style is totally fine. If something feels icky and sounds like a fraud, it's fine to call it out, and use whatever words you want to do so.

clnq 4y ago
I don’t want my criticism to be misinterpreted. The issue with the article is that it is lacking in factual substance compared to strong condemning language and speculation. This makes it seem less credible. The choice of language in an isolated sense is fine. Unique writing styles can be more interesting to read, overall.
fsckboy 4y ago
> sounds like a fraud it doesn't sound like a fraud, unless you or OP have expertise or information that you're not sharing? Fraud is a crime, you should have a basis for declaring it. it might be a poor investment, it could be seen as signs of a shaky company, but accusing a people of fraud should have a basis. disclaimer: i have no relationship to this company whatsoever, including I'm not a customer. i just don't like seeing facially ill-informed piling on
- newaccount74 4y ago
  > you should have a basis for declaring it This is not a court where we need to prove anything, it's just a discussion about a blog post. It's perfectly fine to say something sounds like a fraud based on limited knowledge. We shouldn't trust companies by default, just because they promise things that we want. If a company makes an investment offer that sounds a bit questionable, it's fine to say it sounds like fraud, even if we don't have any concrete evidence for it. It's on the company to provide information that makes them trustworthy. If their marketing materials are contradictive, or elude important info, that's more than enough to call them out for it. Did you read the Brydge story [1]? They started selling preorders for some product as recently as January, when they already ran out of cash. Judging from the "investor email", it sounds like Purism is doing the same thing, except they aren't selling preorders anymore, but just asking for cash instead. [1]: https://9to5mac.com/2023/05/04/brydge-keyboards-out-of-business-update/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/05/04/brydge-keyboards-out-of-busin...
  - clnq 4y ago
    By that definition of fraud (asking investors for cash repeatedly to not run out before turning a profit), many unicorn-status companies are fraud. It takes a long time to become profitable and I don’t see a problem if it’s not said that the company is.
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
      Original writer here again. There is a difference here though, which is that those companies openly tell investors, "we're not profitable," and even have projections in their documentation for when they will be profitable assuming current growth continues. For example, Disney+ warns investors that it is not a profitable business but is trying to get to the point of profitability by the end of 2024. They also have regular public financial statements clearly outlining exactly how much revenue they received, expenses they paid for, and profits received if any. Now, sometimes these projections are... very optimistic like Spotify; but they are still there and check many legal boxes. Unprofitability is not a concern if it is disclosed. Basically anything is OK if there is clear and full disclosure. Purism does not have a disclosure anywhere saying whether this is, or is not, true. You are just left to assume that the company is solid, happy, and solvent without much substance that I could find (not even the most basic Profit/Loss statement), unless I missed some obvious documentation.

clnq 4y ago

I appreciate your openness to feedback and encourage you to delve deeper into the subjects of your articles moving forward. Consider alternative perspectives, and attempt to steel-man the position opposite to the one you wish to present. As you mention ChatGPT, GPT can assist in providing counterarguments, helping you see the fuller picture. Keep in mind that condemning articles can have consequences. While Librem could hurt their investors — the risk is actually inevitable in most businesses, your blog can also harm those striving towards a noble cause. Best of luck with your future articles.

hitekker 4y ago
[flagged]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]