5 ms·

All of which is meaningless if it's not reflected properly in their legal documents/terms. I've had interactions with the Flock CEO here on Hacker News and he a

All of which is meaningless if it's not reflected properly in their legal documents/terms. I've had interactions with the Flock CEO here on Hacker News and he also tried to reassure us that nothing fishy is/was going on. Take it with a grain of salt.

shimman 8mo ago
Why anyone would trust the executives at any company when they are only incentivized to lie, cheat, and steal is beyond me. It's a lesson every generation is hellbent on learning again and against and again. It use to be the default belief, throughout all of humanity, on how greed is bad and dangerous; yet for the last 100 years you'd think the complete opposite was the norm.
- godelski 8mo ago
  > when they are only incentivized to lie, cheat, and steal The fact that they are allowed to do this is beyond me. The fact that they do this is destructive to innovation and I'm not sure why we pretend it enables innovation. There's a thousands multi million dollar companies that I'm confident most users here could implement, but the major reason many don't is because to actually do it is far harder than what those companies build. People who understand that an unlisted link is not an actual security measure, that things need to actually be under lock and key. I'm not saying we should go so far as make mistakes so punishable that no one can do anything but there needs to be some bar. There's so much gross incompetence that we're not even talking about incompetence; a far ways away from mistakes by competent people. We are filtering out those with basic ethics. That's not a system we should be encouraging
  - judahmeek 8mo ago
    Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system. The best fix that we can work on now in America is repealing the 17th amendment to restrengthen the federal system as a check on populist impulses, which can easily be manipulated by liars.
    - touristtam 8mo ago
      So your senators were appointed before that? No election needed?
      - bitwize 8mo ago
        Yes, by state legislatures. The concept was the Senate would reflect the states' interests, whereas the House would reflect the people's interests, in matters of federal legislation.
        throwaway2037 8mo ago
        For those unaware, the German Federal democratic system works in a similar way. They have two houses: the Bundestag (directly elected) and the Bundesrat (appointed by state legistatures). As a outsider, their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well.
        logifail 8mo ago
        > their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well This probably depends on your definition of "working well". In March 2025, after the last Federal elections were held in Germany (February 2025), but before the new parliament was constituted (within 30 days of the results?), the new governing coalition engineered a constitutional amendment which required a supermajority which they would not have in the new parliament, so instead they held the vote in the old parliament. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt-brake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt... This was perfectly legal, although if you explain it to an outsider it might seem like an abuse of process.
        throwaway2037 8mo ago
        I added that last line as a honeypot, as part of my ongoing project on HN. No matter what I say positive about some country, culture, or institution, someone will pop into the conversation to say: "Yes, but what about this one incident. See, X is not so great after all." I think we need an equivalent of Brandolini's law for counterpoint of negativity in all HN discussions. It is as though people think they are disproving a maths proof by counterpoint. That's not the way the Real World of Human Society works. Weirdly, I see the same pattern on Wiki pages about living people. There is always a section of a bunch of random one-off events trying to discredit the person. To react to your specific incident, I think a more nuanced view would be to say that all highly functioning democracies have incidents that are "perfectly legal, but appear as an abuse of process". I don't really think that detracts from the overall statement that Germany is a highly functioning democracy. Moreover, highly functional democracies regularly change parliamentary rules to reduce incidents like this.
- parineum 8mo ago
  > It use to be the default belief, throughout all of humanity, on how greed is bad and dangerous And what used to be the default beliefs on rape and slavery?
nashashmi 8mo ago
Can a ceo's word on linkedin and X be used to make claims against them?
- throwaway2037 8mo ago
  Absolutely. I don't know what legal jurisdiction they are subject to, but I could imagine that someone tries to sue an EU division/outpost in an EU court under a GPDR-type of petition, these posts would be submitted as evidence. One could easily argue the CEO is acting on behalf of the company by posting using their real name. (Let's presume there is no identity fraud for these posts.) And don't forget that Elon Musk was tried in the US for defamation after making a bunch of posts on Twitter against some UK citizens. Assuming that you are posting under your real name, you are definitely legally responsible for those words.
- parineum 8mo ago
  Anything a publicly traded company would state that would lead to a person making a decision to buy or sell stock would be subject to FTC regulations.
  - nashashmi 8mo ago
    And if it is not a publicly traded company? Can the CEO in question making statements and assurances on a forum or linkedin or X in communication with a user cause the company to be in a binding position? Or would it be an empty promise?
jeffybefffy519 8mo ago
Yup exactly, if this is the truth then put it on the terms/privacy policy etc... exec's say anything these days with zero consequences for lieing in a public forum.

shimman 8mo ago

Why anyone would trust the executives at any company when they are only incentivized to lie, cheat, and steal is beyond me. It's a lesson every generation is hellbent on learning again and against and again. It use to be the default belief, throughout all of humanity, on how greed is bad and dangerous; yet for the last 100 years you'd think the complete opposite was the norm.

godelski 8mo ago
> when they are only incentivized to lie, cheat, and steal The fact that they are allowed to do this is beyond me. The fact that they do this is destructive to innovation and I'm not sure why we pretend it enables innovation. There's a thousands multi million dollar companies that I'm confident most users here could implement, but the major reason many don't is because to actually do it is far harder than what those companies build. People who understand that an unlisted link is not an actual security measure, that things need to actually be under lock and key. I'm not saying we should go so far as make mistakes so punishable that no one can do anything but there needs to be some bar. There's so much gross incompetence that we're not even talking about incompetence; a far ways away from mistakes by competent people. We are filtering out those with basic ethics. That's not a system we should be encouraging
- judahmeek 8mo ago
  Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system. The best fix that we can work on now in America is repealing the 17th amendment to restrengthen the federal system as a check on populist impulses, which can easily be manipulated by liars.
  - touristtam 8mo ago
    So your senators were appointed before that? No election needed?
    - bitwize 8mo ago
      Yes, by state legislatures. The concept was the Senate would reflect the states' interests, whereas the House would reflect the people's interests, in matters of federal legislation.
      - throwaway2037 8mo ago
        For those unaware, the German Federal democratic system works in a similar way. They have two houses: the Bundestag (directly elected) and the Bundesrat (appointed by state legistatures). As a outsider, their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well.
        logifail 8mo ago
        > their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well This probably depends on your definition of "working well". In March 2025, after the last Federal elections were held in Germany (February 2025), but before the new parliament was constituted (within 30 days of the results?), the new governing coalition engineered a constitutional amendment which required a supermajority which they would not have in the new parliament, so instead they held the vote in the old parliament. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt-brake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt... This was perfectly legal, although if you explain it to an outsider it might seem like an abuse of process.
        throwaway2037 8mo ago
        I added that last line as a honeypot, as part of my ongoing project on HN. No matter what I say positive about some country, culture, or institution, someone will pop into the conversation to say: "Yes, but what about this one incident. See, X is not so great after all." I think we need an equivalent of Brandolini's law for counterpoint of negativity in all HN discussions. It is as though people think they are disproving a maths proof by counterpoint. That's not the way the Real World of Human Society works. Weirdly, I see the same pattern on Wiki pages about living people. There is always a section of a bunch of random one-off events trying to discredit the person. To react to your specific incident, I think a more nuanced view would be to say that all highly functioning democracies have incidents that are "perfectly legal, but appear as an abuse of process". I don't really think that detracts from the overall statement that Germany is a highly functioning democracy. Moreover, highly functional democracies regularly change parliamentary rules to reduce incidents like this.
parineum 8mo ago
> It use to be the default belief, throughout all of humanity, on how greed is bad and dangerous And what used to be the default beliefs on rape and slavery?

nashashmi 8mo ago

Can a ceo's word on linkedin and X be used to make claims against them?

throwaway2037 8mo ago
Absolutely. I don't know what legal jurisdiction they are subject to, but I could imagine that someone tries to sue an EU division/outpost in an EU court under a GPDR-type of petition, these posts would be submitted as evidence. One could easily argue the CEO is acting on behalf of the company by posting using their real name. (Let's presume there is no identity fraud for these posts.) And don't forget that Elon Musk was tried in the US for defamation after making a bunch of posts on Twitter against some UK citizens. Assuming that you are posting under your real name, you are definitely legally responsible for those words.
parineum 8mo ago
Anything a publicly traded company would state that would lead to a person making a decision to buy or sell stock would be subject to FTC regulations.
- nashashmi 8mo ago
  And if it is not a publicly traded company? Can the CEO in question making statements and assurances on a forum or linkedin or X in communication with a user cause the company to be in a binding position? Or would it be an empty promise?

jeffybefffy519 8mo ago

Yup exactly, if this is the truth then put it on the terms/privacy policy etc... exec's say anything these days with zero consequences for lieing in a public forum.