4 ms·

> On July 12th, I asked Rabbit Inc. if they had any comments to make on the content of this article, > As of the end of July 15th, they have not responded. Th

> On July 12th, I asked Rabbit Inc. if they had any comments to make on the content of this article, > As of the end of July 15th, they have not responded. Their lawyers are considering the options how to sue you.

Retr0id 2y ago
That'd be hilarious.
Suppafly 2y ago
Honestly, it's pretty shitty to ask someone for a comment on a friday afternoon and publish on a monday morning pretending that they didn't reply when you likely gave them zero business hours to reply.
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  Why? They're under no obligation to ask them in the first place.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Not asking is fine, asking is nice, asking when you know it's a period they won't realistically be able to respond just to be able to list you didn't get a response is shitty. Not as shitty as some of the stuff the article finds of course, but still a completely unnecessary callout that detracts from the message on said stuff a bit.
    - Retr0id 2y ago
      I report the non-response directly after reporting how long I gave them to respond, it's not in any way misleading or underhanded. You are free to think that I didn't give them enough time to respond, since "enough time" is subjective. But the amount of time I did give them was objectively reported. It's now been the best part of 4 business days, and they still haven't responded, nor indicated an intent to respond. There's no way I was going to let them delay me indefinitely.
      - zamadatix 2y ago
        Sometimes "it's just reporting the facts" can be done with a lean in itself. You may disagree, that's fine too of course, but this isn't a plain jane "Rabbit did not immediately respond with comments" it has a timeline omitting some facts like like starting on a Friday and is intermixed with commentary on the reachout. Not anything that's false, just also not maybe as neutral as it set out to be. Also not the end of the world, it's still a good article overall.
        Retr0id 2y ago
        fwiw, my article does not set out to be "neutral". It reflects my research-backed personal opinions of Rabbit Inc. and their products (strong negative sentiment) and it would be disingenuous of me to leave that out. Nonetheless, I reject the idea that saying "July 12th" instead of "Friday" is lying by omission.
        zamadatix 2y ago
        It wouldn't be instead of, rather both. I.e. Friday doesn't have full context nor does July 12th. It also wouldn't have to get rid of the other personal commentary, just not put it in the section about having reached out for comment. That said you're more than right in that nothing says the article must set out to be neutral.
        Suppafly 2y ago
        At least you're honest about it being a hit piece and not a journalistic endeavor, but you should at least feel a little shame about your own shitty behavior.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        1. You didn't have to ask them for any comment, that was a courtesy on your part. 2. A weekend is very short time to give comment. If it's on such short notice, you'd generally call them to ask your questions on the phone or swiftly set up written correspondence. 3. One or two weeks, or even more, is a common time schedule for comments from the party being investigated when it comes to investigative journalism. 4. There is probably less than 0% chance that any other investigator would have published the scoop before you.
    - hmottestad 2y ago
      I learned that when they write “did not immediately respond to our request” in the newspaper it means that the journalist called and no one picked up, then went to print. When they write “did not respond to our request” it means they called or emailed and waited a few hours, possibly the next day. Not really the same as what happened here, but thought it would be interesting to mention it here.
      - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
        >when they write “did not immediately respond to our request” in the newspaper it means that the journalist called and no one picked up, then went to print. So the act of calling becomes 'the request'. Reminds me of 'but i replied to your email'. Yeah, but you didn't answer the questions in the email.
  - 1992spacemovie 2y ago
    Because you look like a god damn idiot if you do that. Maybe people here don't care about that, but real humans in the real world do care about that kind of thing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- barnabee 2y ago
  No, not at all. Given that there was no new security vulnerability, it would have been completely reasonable to ask for a comment at the same time as hitting publish and note that they’d been asked for a comment and as of that time had not responded. Just as long as the post is updated if they do respond. “Real” news sources do this all the time. There’s a difference between asking for a comment on an issue and responsible disclosure of a previously new vulnerability.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > to ask for a comment at the same time as hitting publish and note that they’d been asked for a comment No, this is not responsible. The reader is not aware of the time difference and cannot distinguish between a lack of appropriate time to respond and the organization being subversive. Given the context, the usually implies the latter. I wouldn't ever want this to legally be an issue, but we do have to recognize that a lot of language is implicit and that also matters. If you did such a think I believe it would be more ethical to write something along the lines of > we reached out to <x> at the time of publishing and will update when we receive a response. While one could still presume subversive behavior, I think we can all recognize that this is at least less of an implicit blame. For more accuracy, you can even put the date. I've seen this format before > On <date> the <y>-news team reached out to <x> and will update when we receive a response. This ensures that the reader is able to properly understand the time differential and the implications. Remember that reading articles is highly asynchronous. You may be reading them the day of or a month later. If you read that line and <date> was the same day as today or even yesterday, you wouldn't think anything suspicious. But if it is a week later or a month later you have quite a good reason to believe <x> is being subversive.
- yard2010 2y ago
  No. Not in this case.
walrus01 2y ago
I'd take that about as seriously as I would take a threat from the people who made the Juicero, considering the likely imminent insolvency of the company involved.
archon810 2y ago
Given how their devices are selling, I don't think they can afford lawyers.

Retr0id 2y ago

That'd be hilarious.

Suppafly 2y ago

Honestly, it's pretty shitty to ask someone for a comment on a friday afternoon and publish on a monday morning pretending that they didn't reply when you likely gave them zero business hours to reply.

madeofpalk 2y ago
Why? They're under no obligation to ask them in the first place.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Not asking is fine, asking is nice, asking when you know it's a period they won't realistically be able to respond just to be able to list you didn't get a response is shitty. Not as shitty as some of the stuff the article finds of course, but still a completely unnecessary callout that detracts from the message on said stuff a bit.
  - Retr0id 2y ago
    I report the non-response directly after reporting how long I gave them to respond, it's not in any way misleading or underhanded. You are free to think that I didn't give them enough time to respond, since "enough time" is subjective. But the amount of time I did give them was objectively reported. It's now been the best part of 4 business days, and they still haven't responded, nor indicated an intent to respond. There's no way I was going to let them delay me indefinitely.
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      Sometimes "it's just reporting the facts" can be done with a lean in itself. You may disagree, that's fine too of course, but this isn't a plain jane "Rabbit did not immediately respond with comments" it has a timeline omitting some facts like like starting on a Friday and is intermixed with commentary on the reachout. Not anything that's false, just also not maybe as neutral as it set out to be. Also not the end of the world, it's still a good article overall.
      - Retr0id 2y ago
        fwiw, my article does not set out to be "neutral". It reflects my research-backed personal opinions of Rabbit Inc. and their products (strong negative sentiment) and it would be disingenuous of me to leave that out. Nonetheless, I reject the idea that saying "July 12th" instead of "Friday" is lying by omission.
        zamadatix 2y ago
        It wouldn't be instead of, rather both. I.e. Friday doesn't have full context nor does July 12th. It also wouldn't have to get rid of the other personal commentary, just not put it in the section about having reached out for comment. That said you're more than right in that nothing says the article must set out to be neutral.
        Suppafly 2y ago
        At least you're honest about it being a hit piece and not a journalistic endeavor, but you should at least feel a little shame about your own shitty behavior.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      1. You didn't have to ask them for any comment, that was a courtesy on your part. 2. A weekend is very short time to give comment. If it's on such short notice, you'd generally call them to ask your questions on the phone or swiftly set up written correspondence. 3. One or two weeks, or even more, is a common time schedule for comments from the party being investigated when it comes to investigative journalism. 4. There is probably less than 0% chance that any other investigator would have published the scoop before you.
  - hmottestad 2y ago
    I learned that when they write “did not immediately respond to our request” in the newspaper it means that the journalist called and no one picked up, then went to print. When they write “did not respond to our request” it means they called or emailed and waited a few hours, possibly the next day. Not really the same as what happened here, but thought it would be interesting to mention it here.
    - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
      >when they write “did not immediately respond to our request” in the newspaper it means that the journalist called and no one picked up, then went to print. So the act of calling becomes 'the request'. Reminds me of 'but i replied to your email'. Yeah, but you didn't answer the questions in the email.
- 1992spacemovie 2y ago
  Because you look like a god damn idiot if you do that. Maybe people here don't care about that, but real humans in the real world do care about that kind of thing.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
barnabee 2y ago
No, not at all. Given that there was no new security vulnerability, it would have been completely reasonable to ask for a comment at the same time as hitting publish and note that they’d been asked for a comment and as of that time had not responded. Just as long as the post is updated if they do respond. “Real” news sources do this all the time. There’s a difference between asking for a comment on an issue and responsible disclosure of a previously new vulnerability.
- godelski 2y ago
  > to ask for a comment at the same time as hitting publish and note that they’d been asked for a comment No, this is not responsible. The reader is not aware of the time difference and cannot distinguish between a lack of appropriate time to respond and the organization being subversive. Given the context, the usually implies the latter. I wouldn't ever want this to legally be an issue, but we do have to recognize that a lot of language is implicit and that also matters. If you did such a think I believe it would be more ethical to write something along the lines of > we reached out to <x> at the time of publishing and will update when we receive a response. While one could still presume subversive behavior, I think we can all recognize that this is at least less of an implicit blame. For more accuracy, you can even put the date. I've seen this format before > On <date> the <y>-news team reached out to <x> and will update when we receive a response. This ensures that the reader is able to properly understand the time differential and the implications. Remember that reading articles is highly asynchronous. You may be reading them the day of or a month later. If you read that line and <date> was the same day as today or even yesterday, you wouldn't think anything suspicious. But if it is a week later or a month later you have quite a good reason to believe <x> is being subversive.
yard2010 2y ago
No. Not in this case.

walrus01 2y ago

I'd take that about as seriously as I would take a threat from the people who made the Juicero, considering the likely imminent insolvency of the company involved.

archon810 2y ago

Given how their devices are selling, I don't think they can afford lawyers.