[treis]

It would have gone over a lot better if he didn't spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it.

And it would have gone over a lot better if he was honest about what happened. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he's all "was that wrong? Should I not have done that?". They knew exactly what they were doing and calculated that it was worth it.

[wolfgang42]

Quick correction:

> spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it.

It was actually a only a couple of hours and a few (very inflammatory and highly downvoted) comments, near the beginning of the thread, and then radio silence as the fire raged on.

I think that he took a step back and began reconsidering after realizing that his comments weren’t helping any, but because they were the only thing he said in that thread and a lot of discussion was focused on them it seemed like a lot more activity than it really was. (Not that this excuses anything, but I think it’s important to be clear about what happened.)

[bigiain]

I suspect the board and/or legal and/or investors confiscated all his devices and put him in total lockdown...

[username3]

He didn't spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it.

[JshWright]

He certainly spent a great deal of time saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" (a classic non-apology... there's no better way to make a bad situation worse than by starting off with those words).

[neonate]

Yeah but not for a couple days. He got whipped by downvotes and left after a couple hours. Agreed about the sorry you feel part.

[yomly]

What I've come to observe is that you can never make everyone happy - a truism detached from this specific incident.

So when you receive negative feedback on something - how should you respond?

What if you're used to some certain baseline level of negativity? How should you respond then?

I feel like there is feedback on the individual level and the aggregate level. Clearly in this case TripleByte saw that they would have alienated a large and important community but I'm convinced you can blame a CEO for being diplomatic but thick skinned.

I mean this is the community famed for trivialising Dropbox

[bigiain]

> What I've come to observe is that you can never make everyone happy

Most of us get through life without ever making that many people that unhappy all at once though. It's not like this outcry wasn't obvious and predictable to any reasonable person.

[JshWright]

There are plenty of ways to respond. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is never one of them.

[otterley]

I interpret such a statement as expressing sympathy with someone's point of view, but also disagreeing with it.

[nogabebop23]

It's pretty well understood by people far less experienced than the CEO (i.e. me) that you need to split those messages up.

Empathy is unconditional. It says "wow, that must be really painful/terrible/scary". It carries no judgement around the accuracy of such feelings, only an understanding that they are real for the other person.

Disagreeing comes later after you have shown there are legitimate competing solutions.

"I'm sorry you feel that way" fails at the first so you haven't yet earned the right to disagree agreeably.

[otterley]

What makes it complicated, though, is that some people interpret "I'm sorry" as an admission of guilt or agreement, so conservative lawyers and others recommend specifying what you feel sorry for so as to not give away the farm.

[photonios]

I can see how that conclusion gets drawn.

Any new feature that is announced can be met with some negativity. Sometimes it just ends up working despite that. It is not surprising to me that at first, they tried to defend their plans. It probably took a while for the backslash to sink in and their own opinions to change.

I wouldn't expect every company, even ones that target HN's primary audience to turn everything around right away because of an angry thread within a few hours. They turned around in 2-3 days. Quick enough if you ask me.

Disclaimer: I am really not in any way affiliated with Triplebyte. I am not even a user/customer. I just see a lot of negativity that I that I find unjustified.

[treis]

Nobody is mad about a "feature". They're mad because Triplebyte made sensitive private data public.

[Silhouette]

They're mad because Triplebyte made sensitive private data public.

And engaged in a host of dark patterns that made it difficult for people to effectively respond to that, for example by getting the data deleted and cancelling any account they had. The problem wasn't just the original error in judgement, serious as that was. It was the doubling down on it in both the implementation and the handling of the criticism when it was announced.

[RobertRoberts]

This ^. This is the issue.

Calling it only a "feature" is just downright twisting the facts.

[colejohnson66]

Except they didn’t make any data public. Yes, they were going to, but they hadn’t yet.

[MintelIE]

Is it possible to look too kindly at somebody? I think so. Clearly the CEO is backpedaling now that there's been a public outcry.

He's not sorry about what he did. He's sad he got caught.

[CathedralBorrow]

What's the penalty for looking too kindly at somebody in this context?

[MintelIE]

One continues to be taken advantage of, over and over again.

Assuming good faith is not prudent when dealing with people who want your money or data. We have enough collective experience at this stage to say this conclusively.

Edit: Being cynical is the new normal when dealing with companies. Especially if they have your data, or want it.

[CathedralBorrow]

Wait, I thought we were talking about kindness after they pulled the plug and backtracked on everything.

How am I being taken advantage of if I read that letter and think "Well, good for them to finally realize things and take the right steps"? And I hope you're not speaking for everyone when you talk about good faith.

[bigiain]

They have not "taken the right steps", at least not yet.

They've "stopped beating their wife". That's nothing to be proud of or rewarded for.

Everything else so far is just empty words. (Well written and convincing words, sure. But that guarantees nothing, any of us could find somebody to write a great apology if we're prepared to pay. Means nothing.)

[CathedralBorrow]

> They have not "taken the right steps", at least not yet.

So reversing and apologizing is still taking the wrong steps? Is this one of those situations where no positive descriptor must ever be uttered about someone?

> That's nothing to be proud of or rewarded for.

Good thing I never said that. I don't think we're speaking the same language here.

[mthoms]

> Assuming good faith is not prudent when dealing with people who want your money or data. We have enough collective experience at this stage to say this conclusively.

Well said. This ought to be taught in schools.

Being slightly pedantic I'd change it to "when dealing with companies that want your money or data" rather than "people" (though I've pretty sure that's the general meaning you intended anyhow).

[MintelIE]

Until companies are run by AI, it's people.

[mthoms]

What I mean is that I wouldn't apply the "don't assume good faith" principle to all people in all cases where money is exchanged. Like smaller "mom and pop" businesses, charities, or the self-employed for example. That's the only reason I made the distinction.

[colejohnson66]

You’re assuming ill intent on a new company. To be so cynical is not a good way to view things in life. Also, they don’t want my money. You literally pay nothing to use them; they get paid (a one time lump sum) by the company who hires you

[skinkestek]

Think of it this way: If someone I trusted with my data doxxes me it doesn't matter if they do it for free!

Yes, we know they weren't doing it for the goodness in their hearts, but there's a huge leap between

- using what they know about me to sell services to others (classic Google)

- and outright selling/publishing my data to others

There's a reason why I still - despite all my dislike for Google - still respect them somewhat: they actually seems to try to guard their treasure chest of juicy customer data against both governments as well as everyone else, they seem to be in this for the long haul.

Edit: try to avoid being rude / abrasive

[BurningFrog]

> He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar

This confuses me. What big payout could they have gotten from making this public?