4 ms·

Are you kidding me? This message is likely worse than staying silent.

• ctdonath 13y ago
  Silent would be worse. At least we know that the site is deliberately disabled by its owners, as opposed to a host of other hypotheticals we'd be discussing otherwise.
  • 650REDHAIR 13y ago
    No. Because this shows that they aren't using some sort of professional crisis management team and are trying to handle it in house. That's ridiculous. They keep showing themselves incapable of handling such a high profile company.
    • yebyen 13y ago
      Do they have to hire a team if someone with deeper pockets just came in and said "Shut it down, we're buying you out"? You may be right that they are incompetent and it shows, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the answer is to right now immediately hire a new team and let them handle it.
  • bigje54 13y ago
    But is that really any better? Instead of not trusting hackers/outside entities, you have to deal with not being able to trust the site/company creators. I'd call that worse than staying silent. This statement inspires absolutely zero confidence and trust at a time when both those things are necessary at some level.