4 ms·

Okay, but I (and I suspect a lot of people) really don't care if somebody is threatened in that way. If the business person doesn't want other people to know w

Okay, but I (and I suspect a lot of people) really don't care if somebody is threatened in that way. If the business person doesn't want other people to know what they're doing then maybe they shouldn't do it. It's not worthy of a news article, IMO. If somebody threatens them with violence (which is what "threat" is usually implying) then that's a different thing entirely.

fakedang 12d ago
"It would be a pity if I were to tarnish jlarocco's reputation within my network. I even have his GitHub from his profile. I'll just talk shit about him to all the CTOs on the block and ensure he doesn't get a job again..." See how that works? That's why you should care. The so-called influencer-orienter culture has become a plague after social media. And these F&B businesses are the ones hit hardest - remember all those movies in the 90s and 00s about how some up and coming entrepreneur or chef had to win the approval of some hoity-toity food journalist? Also, rest assured, I'm not serious about badmouthing you or anyone here for that matter - just trying to illustrate a point.
- jlarocco 12d ago
  Oh, I get it, but it only works if the "influencer" can actually influence a large enough group of customers, and my bet is that they can't. If it were me, I would have called their bluff and ignored them.
  - brandon272 12d ago
    In that analogy, you SHOULD assume the person is an influencer. In the case of this shop, we're talking about local retail. If you are a retail small business owner you have to assume that any customer can be an "influencer" and cause significant harm if they seek to trash your business online.
brandon272 12d ago
If I tell someone that I am going to take a coordinated effort to undermine their business and get customers to stop shopping there, potentially resulting in the demise of the business, the loss of their livelihood and ability to provide for themselves or their family, I cannot think of any reasonable person who would not categorize that as a threat. A threat by no means is limited to violence only. I am really disturbed by language minimizes concrete actions taken to cause harm. "I am not hurting your business I am just talking to my friends!"
- jlarocco 12d ago
  Sorry, but the business owner has to own their actions. If they have a large customer base of artists who will feel betrayed by their using AI, then it was a mistake to use it. It's her right to use AI, but the customers also have the right to say they won't patronize businesses who use AI, and are free to tell people they know that the business is using it. If the shop's oat milk was really cow's milk, would it be "threatening their business" to tell other customers that?
  - brandon272 12d ago
    If the "business owner needs to own their actions", shouldn't the people who are seeking to take a coordinated effort to harm that business also "own their actions" and be able to say plainly what they are doing instead of misrepresenting it via "Stop being crazy, I'm not making threats, I'm just talking to my friends" gaslighting nonsense? > If the shop's oat milk was really cow's milk, would it be "threatening their business" to tell other customers that? To entertain this analogy, if a shop is misrepresenting their ingredients then it can make sense to spread the word, particularly if the shop owner refuses to rectify the issue, because there are health implications which represent a legitimate material harm to their customer base and the safety issue takes priority over the shop owner's bottom line. An AI menu, assuming it offers a reasonable representation of what the shop offers, has no safety issue.
    - jlarocco 12d ago
      AI stealing their jobs isn't a "legitimate material harm"? It doesn't matter anyway, because "using AI" doesn't make somebody a protected class. If people don't want to patronize businesses that use AI, there's nothing wrong with that.
jackb4040 12d ago
To be fair to the news, there probably wasn't much else happening in Buffalo NY

fakedang 12d ago

"It would be a pity if I were to tarnish jlarocco's reputation within my network. I even have his GitHub from his profile. I'll just talk shit about him to all the CTOs on the block and ensure he doesn't get a job again..." See how that works? That's why you should care. The so-called influencer-orienter culture has become a plague after social media. And these F&B businesses are the ones hit hardest - remember all those movies in the 90s and 00s about how some up and coming entrepreneur or chef had to win the approval of some hoity-toity food journalist? Also, rest assured, I'm not serious about badmouthing you or anyone here for that matter - just trying to illustrate a point.

jlarocco 12d ago
Oh, I get it, but it only works if the "influencer" can actually influence a large enough group of customers, and my bet is that they can't. If it were me, I would have called their bluff and ignored them.
- brandon272 12d ago
  In that analogy, you SHOULD assume the person is an influencer. In the case of this shop, we're talking about local retail. If you are a retail small business owner you have to assume that any customer can be an "influencer" and cause significant harm if they seek to trash your business online.

brandon272 12d ago

If I tell someone that I am going to take a coordinated effort to undermine their business and get customers to stop shopping there, potentially resulting in the demise of the business, the loss of their livelihood and ability to provide for themselves or their family, I cannot think of any reasonable person who would not categorize that as a threat. A threat by no means is limited to violence only. I am really disturbed by language minimizes concrete actions taken to cause harm. "I am not hurting your business I am just talking to my friends!"

jlarocco 12d ago
Sorry, but the business owner has to own their actions. If they have a large customer base of artists who will feel betrayed by their using AI, then it was a mistake to use it. It's her right to use AI, but the customers also have the right to say they won't patronize businesses who use AI, and are free to tell people they know that the business is using it. If the shop's oat milk was really cow's milk, would it be "threatening their business" to tell other customers that?
- brandon272 12d ago
  If the "business owner needs to own their actions", shouldn't the people who are seeking to take a coordinated effort to harm that business also "own their actions" and be able to say plainly what they are doing instead of misrepresenting it via "Stop being crazy, I'm not making threats, I'm just talking to my friends" gaslighting nonsense? > If the shop's oat milk was really cow's milk, would it be "threatening their business" to tell other customers that? To entertain this analogy, if a shop is misrepresenting their ingredients then it can make sense to spread the word, particularly if the shop owner refuses to rectify the issue, because there are health implications which represent a legitimate material harm to their customer base and the safety issue takes priority over the shop owner's bottom line. An AI menu, assuming it offers a reasonable representation of what the shop offers, has no safety issue.
  - jlarocco 12d ago
    AI stealing their jobs isn't a "legitimate material harm"? It doesn't matter anyway, because "using AI" doesn't make somebody a protected class. If people don't want to patronize businesses that use AI, there's nothing wrong with that.

jackb4040 12d ago

To be fair to the news, there probably wasn't much else happening in Buffalo NY