> I rather think that existence was due to a source and a journo - not any public court. It's pretty hard for me to conceptualize that you are still trying to

> I rather think that existence was due to a source and a journo - not any public court. It's pretty hard for me to conceptualize that you are still trying to argue "actually, maybe it's appropriate for the silly lottery marketing website to output unsolicited porn without warning because one user might enjoy that" by literally nitpicking semantics in the idea that the average person is not going to find this appropriate. A journalist and a source can indeed make for some bunk stories. It's still a point for this being a legitimate concern. Another obvious point towards that is the fact that it made it to the HN frontpage and now we're discussing it. > Promptly? "Washington’s Lottery waited until after my inquiry before turning the site offline". March 30th: the incident in question April 2nd: gone Two business days is quite prompt to decide to entirely shut something down over a single incident that isn't even confirmed to have happened actually, yeah.