3 ms·

I can't read the original post due to the takedown from the legal threat, but it sounded to me like a ham-fisted expression of what could have been a reasonable

I can't read the original post due to the takedown from the legal threat, but it sounded to me like a ham-fisted expression of what could have been a reasonable inference. And I'm not going to judge them too hard for failing to beat around the bush with enough weasel words to make their statement airtight technically correct. The original nastygram from the company opens up with an acknowledgement of believing good faith and talks about trying to cooperate, while also including terms like 'defamation' and 'libel', so I don't know if I'm missing something here or you're just talking hypothetically about those acting in bad faith. In general I'd say there's a strong division between working with someone in good faith to correct misunderstandings, and threatening a lawsuit. The original letter could (and should) have said "this is wrong in your post" and asked for it to be updated. Then if the journalist is refusing to engage and/or retract, it's reasonable to start wondering if there really is good faith and escalate to legal threats. But doing both at once is effectively just bullying while trying to cloak it.

kbenson 2y ago
I'm mostly going by the author's own notes on how they responded, in which they state this: • You assumed we'd never gene sequenced the bacteria, even though I posted the sequence publicly. I assumed you did not regularly sequence the bacteria because you did not say that you did and you did not report anything about following manufacturing regulations. That is a very weird defense to take in my opinion, and is the crux of my problem with the author in this argument. It is not acceptable to make a negative inference and then express it publicly as fact because the other party didn't mention something. That is not responsibly journalism, and to me it explains why the CEO was struggling to see good faith initially. That's not usually the behavior you see when people are communicating in good faith.

kbenson 2y ago

I'm mostly going by the author's own notes on how they responded, in which they state this: • You assumed we'd never gene sequenced the bacteria, even though I posted the sequence publicly. I assumed you did not regularly sequence the bacteria because you did not say that you did and you did not report anything about following manufacturing regulations. That is a very weird defense to take in my opinion, and is the crux of my problem with the author in this argument. It is not acceptable to make a negative inference and then express it publicly as fact because the other party didn't mention something. That is not responsibly journalism, and to me it explains why the CEO was struggling to see good faith initially. That's not usually the behavior you see when people are communicating in good faith.