[andrewstuart]

My point is precisely that to me, "jgc" IS a random person. How the heck do I know who this person is.

It shouldn't matter, and it should not be required, that someone "known and important" within an organisation decides to start doing hands on tech support in social media following a PR disaster.

If "jgc" is actually someone important within this company then maybe after fixing this issue, they can then go fiox their tech support by setting up and ombudsman and get their PR disasters off the front page of HN.

[Swizec]

It’s the CTO according to their HN profile ;)

[inetknght]

You're missing the point. It shouldn't be necessary for someone to know who's-who in order to get things resolved.

[cabaalis]

You may be right, but knowing "who's who" is very largely how general business gets done. Buying services over the internet from an anonymous black box with no support is a recent disruption.

[kortilla]

No, normally you didn’t have to know someone in the C suite to “get business done”. That’s totally unscalable.

What’s a recent development is the complete lack of support when shit goes south. Back when you were interacting with real reps you had people that could see when stuff was obviously wrong and escalate appropriately.

[cabaalis]

Did I say anything about C-suite? Your point is nearly word for word the same as mine, I'm not sure why you're replying as a refutation.