[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