4 ms·

The sentiment reads 'Yeah yeah, we hear you, here's some token feel goods but we're going to continue to forge ahead and hope the idiots among you generate enou

The sentiment reads 'Yeah yeah, we hear you, here's some token feel goods but we're going to continue to forge ahead and hope the idiots among you generate enough positive noise for us to drown out the dissenting signals'. I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty. People have genuine concerns and they should be addressed clearly. I think the market would simply be happy with a 'Creative Commons' default option tbh (like deviantart, flickr etc) with an account or picture level opt-out. Really simple, just put a cherry on this crap. Somewhere.

saraid216 14y ago
> I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty. I thought, "We run a business," was a blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general.
- DRMAN 14y ago
  We run a business so we are trying to take your data politely!
- davidw 14y ago
  > I thought, "We run a business," was a blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general. So, uh, what are you doing on a site dedicated in no small part to startups? Are you calling all of us who run businesses intellectually dishonest?
  - cbs 14y ago
    There is nothing mutually exclusive about running a business and being honest. What exactly are you trying to say about HN and/or startups that would make him out of place here?
    - davidw 14y ago
      > There is nothing mutually exclusive about running a business and being honest. That's why his comment about "running a business" being a "blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general." seemed offensive to me, as it paints a lot of people with a very broad brush. It seems like the kind of one-liner point scoring one finds on, ahem, other unnamed sites.
      - cbs 14y ago
        If it seems offensive, you're reading the directionality wrong. The closest thing to use as an example, but doesn't exactly fit this situation, is the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Like it or not, we live in a society where "because money" is a reasonable justification for a huge number of otherwise disgusting actions. Acknowledging that not does not imply that if your goal is to make money, you have to do such things.

saraid216 14y ago

> I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty. I thought, "We run a business," was a blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general.

DRMAN 14y ago
We run a business so we are trying to take your data politely!
davidw 14y ago
> I thought, "We run a business," was a blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general. So, uh, what are you doing on a site dedicated in no small part to startups? Are you calling all of us who run businesses intellectually dishonest?
- cbs 14y ago
  There is nothing mutually exclusive about running a business and being honest. What exactly are you trying to say about HN and/or startups that would make him out of place here?
  - davidw 14y ago
    > There is nothing mutually exclusive about running a business and being honest. That's why his comment about "running a business" being a "blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general." seemed offensive to me, as it paints a lot of people with a very broad brush. It seems like the kind of one-liner point scoring one finds on, ahem, other unnamed sites.
    - cbs 14y ago
      If it seems offensive, you're reading the directionality wrong. The closest thing to use as an example, but doesn't exactly fit this situation, is the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Like it or not, we live in a society where "because money" is a reasonable justification for a huge number of otherwise disgusting actions. Acknowledging that not does not imply that if your goal is to make money, you have to do such things.