3 ms·

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 p

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.

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.