4 ms·

> I only wish that you hadn’t implied inethical motives with words like “extortion,” “mafia shakedown,” etc. The fact is, many people hear those words and nothi

by randy 18y ago

> I only wish that you hadn’t implied inethical motives with words like “extortion,” “mafia shakedown,” etc. The fact is, many people hear those words and nothing else, and it compromises years of work by our small but committed team. Well, at least now they know how Jason (and potentially thousands of other committed teams) felt.

trapper 18y ago
It's quite ironic given their business name how unsatisfied many people are with them. I certainly felt this way, but thought there was nothing I could do about it. Thanks Jason I say.
- davidw 18y ago
  > thought there was nothing I could do about it. Did you contact them?
  - trapper 18y ago
    No. I don't contact the bakery if it's bread is mouldy either.
    - davidw 18y ago
      Their service might affect your site even if you're not interested in it in the slightest (you sort of give the impression that you'd become frustrated with them prior to Jason's letter), whereas it's very easy to change bakeries with no second thoughts or problems, so the two are not equivalent.
      - trapper 18y ago
        They aren't equivalent, but are similar. I was offended by their business model (pay to get your competitors ads off your support page - wtf) and would never use them for that very reason. I must admit it's a pretty impressive model regardless. It's like something Mr Burns would come up with :)
webwright 18y ago
Can we please (as a race or at least the HN community) grow out of this eye-for-an-eye, two wrongs make a right crap? OT: It reminds me of Obama's response when criticized about spending explosion: "Well, my critics clearly have short memories. The republicans increased spending dramatically, too!"
- swombat 18y ago
  Agreed. I'm really very disappointed in the HN community on this topic. There was sheepish downmodding galore on the original thread, and emotional, badly thought out responses the likes of which I'm not used to here. Looks like Jason Fried managed to bring out the worst in our community :-( It's particularly galling to see this turn on a pretty decent start-up like GetSatisfaction.
  - condor 18y ago
    we already knew that J.F. likes to approach anything to do with 37S from the angle of highest exposure and maximum cheese, that is disappointing, but I wouldn't let the messenger taint the message, those features of get satisfaction are 100% deceptive whether J.F. said it or not.
- Semiapies 18y ago
  Could you please explain why it is "wrong" to publicly criticize a company that is misbehaving, particularly one that centers its business largely around being a venue for public criticisms of other companies? This premise keeps being bandied around by GS defenders here and elsewhere, and I'd really like to hear the logic behind it.
  - webwright 18y ago
    Sure-- though I think saying that GS is "centered" around "public criticism" is wrong. It's centered around getting help and being heard. I separate willful misbehaving from bad judgment and mistakes. Startups are like children- they flail around and make mistakes (lord knows mine does!). If a child/startup does something bad without intending to do evil, I think a quiet correction is a good idea. Example: A child spills juice all over the floor in a classroom. Is it right for an influential classmate announce his clumsiness to the class and lecture the class on how sticky juice on the floor is a terribly thing, inconveniencing everyone? If spilled juice is a big deal, you could STILL go public with a, "Hey, Billy didn't mean it-- but this is a good opportunity to discuss the perils of spilled juice and why we should be so careful with out juiceboxes". If the act was a result of malice or shameful neglect, then I think a public thrashing is more appropriate. GS clearly fucked up, but I think there are plenty of scenarios where that fuckup could've been a result of a hurried design/review process, an errant employee, or just plain bad judgment. You can read the founder's letter describing how the design decisions happened ( http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2009/03/31/open-letter-to-jason-fried/ http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2009/03/31/open-letter-to-ja... ). It's a pretty credible story. It doesn't excuse the mistake, but it should make us lean towards leniency in the punishment-- especially considering that all of us are in the same boat (37s, HN Founders, etc). A lot of it comes down the the style of the attack by 37s and the influence they wield. Vigilante mobs are easy to summon but hard to dismiss. The internet is forever, so if you damage a party (or damage them way more than they deserve), it's very hard to repair. IMO, one of the biggest problems with the human race is that we don't seek to understand before we condemn. I'd kinda hoped that the HN community would give a startup that's pretty clearly trying NOT to be evil here the benefit of the doubt.

by randy 18y ago

trapper 18y ago

It's quite ironic given their business name how unsatisfied many people are with them. I certainly felt this way, but thought there was nothing I could do about it. Thanks Jason I say.

davidw 18y ago
> thought there was nothing I could do about it. Did you contact them?
- trapper 18y ago
  No. I don't contact the bakery if it's bread is mouldy either.
  - davidw 18y ago
    Their service might affect your site even if you're not interested in it in the slightest (you sort of give the impression that you'd become frustrated with them prior to Jason's letter), whereas it's very easy to change bakeries with no second thoughts or problems, so the two are not equivalent.
    - trapper 18y ago
      They aren't equivalent, but are similar. I was offended by their business model (pay to get your competitors ads off your support page - wtf) and would never use them for that very reason. I must admit it's a pretty impressive model regardless. It's like something Mr Burns would come up with :)

webwright 18y ago

Can we please (as a race or at least the HN community) grow out of this eye-for-an-eye, two wrongs make a right crap? OT: It reminds me of Obama's response when criticized about spending explosion: "Well, my critics clearly have short memories. The republicans increased spending dramatically, too!"

swombat 18y ago
Agreed. I'm really very disappointed in the HN community on this topic. There was sheepish downmodding galore on the original thread, and emotional, badly thought out responses the likes of which I'm not used to here. Looks like Jason Fried managed to bring out the worst in our community :-( It's particularly galling to see this turn on a pretty decent start-up like GetSatisfaction.
- condor 18y ago
  we already knew that J.F. likes to approach anything to do with 37S from the angle of highest exposure and maximum cheese, that is disappointing, but I wouldn't let the messenger taint the message, those features of get satisfaction are 100% deceptive whether J.F. said it or not.
Semiapies 18y ago
Could you please explain why it is "wrong" to publicly criticize a company that is misbehaving, particularly one that centers its business largely around being a venue for public criticisms of other companies? This premise keeps being bandied around by GS defenders here and elsewhere, and I'd really like to hear the logic behind it.
- webwright 18y ago
  Sure-- though I think saying that GS is "centered" around "public criticism" is wrong. It's centered around getting help and being heard. I separate willful misbehaving from bad judgment and mistakes. Startups are like children- they flail around and make mistakes (lord knows mine does!). If a child/startup does something bad without intending to do evil, I think a quiet correction is a good idea. Example: A child spills juice all over the floor in a classroom. Is it right for an influential classmate announce his clumsiness to the class and lecture the class on how sticky juice on the floor is a terribly thing, inconveniencing everyone? If spilled juice is a big deal, you could STILL go public with a, "Hey, Billy didn't mean it-- but this is a good opportunity to discuss the perils of spilled juice and why we should be so careful with out juiceboxes". If the act was a result of malice or shameful neglect, then I think a public thrashing is more appropriate. GS clearly fucked up, but I think there are plenty of scenarios where that fuckup could've been a result of a hurried design/review process, an errant employee, or just plain bad judgment. You can read the founder's letter describing how the design decisions happened ( http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2009/03/31/open-letter-to-jason-fried/ http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2009/03/31/open-letter-to-ja... ). It's a pretty credible story. It doesn't excuse the mistake, but it should make us lean towards leniency in the punishment-- especially considering that all of us are in the same boat (37s, HN Founders, etc). A lot of it comes down the the style of the attack by 37s and the influence they wield. Vigilante mobs are easy to summon but hard to dismiss. The internet is forever, so if you damage a party (or damage them way more than they deserve), it's very hard to repair. IMO, one of the biggest problems with the human race is that we don't seek to understand before we condemn. I'd kinda hoped that the HN community would give a startup that's pretty clearly trying NOT to be evil here the benefit of the doubt.