4 ms·
Flock impersonates journalist in order to cancel his hotel reservations
- andsoitis 3mo ago> impersonates The person said: “…contact a hotel on my behalf…”. They didn’t claim impersonation.
- donkey_brains 3mo ago[flagged]
- andsoitis 3mo agoYou said it: false alarm. I might go further: the person who posted this story made up (aka lie) a headline which is not what the journalist claimed.
- jdjdkdisosk 3mo ago[flagged]
- andsoitis 3mo agoIf I booked as part of a block booking for a conference and the conference got cancelled or attendance criteria changed, it is nice if I don’t have to cancel the booking myself but instead the conference organizer did it on my behalf.
- miladyincontrol 3mo agodirect thread link https://x.com/bennjordan/status/2089430236945342508 https://x.com/bennjordan/status/2089430236945342508
- evan_a_a 3mo agoIf the journalist really did make a reservation under the room block for the event, and then was denied attendance to the event, it would seem fairly normal for the reservation to be canceled by the block holder. Really, if the journalist wanted to cover the event without being noticed he could've done so undercover.
- forestry 3mo agoNot really. A block is just a group discount.
- cryptonector 3mo agoPerhaps Flock would say that since they were denying the journalist a pass, they should also deny them the room block discount. The hotel could just charge the journalist the difference rather than cancel their room though.
- bjtitus 3mo agoAlso holding rooms for that block, though.
- evan_a_a 3mo agoThat comes with a contract between the hotel and the block holder.
- pseudo0 3mo agoIt depends how it's set up. Often a block will reserve a certain number of rooms for attendees, to ensure people will have somewhere to stay close to the conference site. Usually any unbooked rooms in the block get released closer to the event date.
- code_biologist 3mo agoIt does not seem likely that he booked it under the Flock room block. The text of the screenshotted email: "called on my behalf and canceled my hotel reservation that I personally made on Hilton's website. They also have not refunded the reservation, as it is now associated with Flock in the system." It doesn't clearly state that it was part of the room block at Benn's initial booking, and it implies that the booking was not associated with Flock when the initial booking was made.
- Freedom2 3mo agoI wonder if this is in the typical runbook for other YC companies.
- techteach00 3mo agoI'm vehemently anti-Flock but am upset the majority of that group, the people taking down these cameras, appear to be anti-cars because they won't do the same for surveillance speed cameras everywhere.
- popalchemist 3mo agoyou're not anti-car just because you don't oppose those cameras with the same vitriol. Flock is orders of magnitude more evil.
- techteach00 3mo agoWhy?
- popalchemist 3mo agobecause it's actively aiding fascism and the literal extrajudicial kidnapping, murder, and sex trafficking of children, women, and minorities at the behest of big brother who in the current administration are enacting literal fascist, borderline genocidal policies.
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoWell I think the people that opposed flock are the ones that I want to enable kidnapping murder and sex trafficking
- popalchemist 3mo agowhat now
- tekno45 3mo agoi am anti cars. You want to drive a 2 ton vehicle on roads i pay for, don't speed.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- BugsJustFindMe 3mo agoThe submitted headline editorializes a false claim. A 2-steps-from-origin word-of-mouth claim of "They told me someone called on my behalf" is not the same thing as "Flock impersonates". "they told me" (definitive) and "called on my behalf" (interpretable) are both important here.
- code_biologist 3mo agoThe submitted headline dangerously distorts an evidenced claim to the point of falsehood.
- BugsJustFindMe 3mo agoYes that's what I said.
- ryandrake 3mo agoThey're unimportant wording nit-picks, but actually, if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel: The hotel should only let the actual traveler cancel their booking. The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking? If you think so, please let me know next time you have travel plans and we'll put that to the test. I would hope the hotel would not be vulnerable to that kind of attack.
- BugsJustFindMe 3mo ago> They're unimportant wording nit-picks. They're false statements of fact. > if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel I see now suddenly we've gone from "Flock bad" to "hotel bad". I hope you recognize the importance of that shift in blame in relation to the submitted headline. > The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking? A booking made in a designated room block. If you call the hotel and claim to be a member of my family reunion then I'm going to call the hotel and tell them that you lied.
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoSeems fine. Blocks can be reserved or purchased by companies and have final say on who uses them, such as customers/attendees that did not misrepresent themselves. Dude can book without the block or go to a different Hotel.
- purpleidea 3mo agoWhy is this flagged? Impersonation is a big deal :/
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoBecause the title is an editorial lie and no one impersonated anyone. Nobody even claimed that if you follow the link
- purpleidea 3mo agoI actually did read the whole thing. Read what the journalist said... You can't call and cancel someone's hotel reservation on their behalf. That's super sketch.
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoNobody impersonated anyone. Turns out you can cancel someone's reservation if it is tied to you.