4 ms·
The tacit identification in the post is an interesting strategy. Why not just explicitly identify the individual? Are there legal implications here or is he tr
by ajhit406 12y ago
The tacit identification in the post is an interesting strategy. Why not just explicitly identify the individual? Are there legal implications here or is he trying to manufacture more drama by getting the reader more involved?
- elsewhen 12y agoi presume he doesn't want to be the one to out the guy, which might be viewed negatively. instead, he gave just enough details to let someone else to do the outing.
- sahara 12y agoI surmise that the interest in this post (both the retweets that brought it to my attention as well as the upvotes that propelled it to the top of the front page almost immediately after I submitted it) is largely driven by an expectation that the investor described in the article would be outed. It's been noted by you and others elsewhere in the thread, but a reading through that lens leaves the impression that the details provided were intended to have exactly that effect.
- emcarey 12y agoi think in general, given this landscape, it's just safer to publish without 'naming names' as a way to also protect the company. The last thing all the investors would want would be for the company to get a bad name for leaking information to one bad investor- putting the fault on the founder for his or her mistake, which takes away from the product and team with a silly scandal.