3 ms·
No, I'm simply trying to say the researcher would have more pleasant interactions with the people they email if they helped the person understand what they _do_
by DangitBobby 2y ago
No, I'm simply trying to say the researcher would have more pleasant interactions with the people they email if they helped the person understand what they _do_ want out of the interaction instead of just saying they aren't being scammed. If the researcher placed themselves in the shoes of the CEO, they could understand why the CEO responded that way. That's not the same thing as thinking the CEO _should_ have responded that way. I am also not letting the researcher off the hook for responding to the CEOs response the way they did.
- margalabargala 2y agoThe author did just that, though. They said they wanted to write up a post about the incident. I think both I and the author understand why the CEO responded as they did; it's because the CEO doesn't care about security, and when a security issue was raised, they viewed the reporter as a threat to the blanket of lies they wanted to use to brush the whole thing under the rug. In light of that, I think the author's response was appropriate. A lesser response would be letting the company off the hook.
- DangitBobby 2y agoThe CEO's reasons for not liking the situation are quite obvious, yes, they were caught with their pants down, it makes them look bad (the company was bad). I'm not advocating for letting them off the hook, I'm advocating for better communication. That's pretty much it.