[sodality2]

Sure, but at what point does a genuine apology look identical to one that is "fake"., and at what point will people just be unhappy with any response they give? I mean, losing bank access is pretty ridiculous, so it's not exactly uncalled for, but then the response to their message shouldn't be "this is unauthentic" but rather something along the lines of "this does not give me my bank access back" since no response would satisfy them.

[ryandrake]

My favorite response is the standard: “At [Company] we take [X] very seriously.” Where [X] is what recently catastrophically failed because they didn’t take it seriously at all.

[Qwertious]

'Sure, but at what point does a genuine apology look identical to one that is "fake"., and at what point will people just be unhappy with any response they give?'

It's about what they're apologising for. For instance, if (hypothetically) they stole everyone's money and spent it all on hookers and blow, then their apology for dropping web access is completely besides the point.

The main problem IMO with fake apologies is that they're a shitty attempt at pretending to be reasonable to those who aren't aware of the situation (and by extension, portraying people who are still mad and ignore the 'apology' as being unreasonable), without actually acknowledging the real problem or committing to fixing it.

AFAICT Simple is giving a genuine apology, btw, I'm just speaking generally here.

[fireattack]

Just in case I wasn't clear, I think we both agree that message being unauthentic is a different matter from the incident itself. Just that angry people often can't/wont distinguish the two.

I pointed this out because GP seems to not be affected, so his view won't be obscured by this; but the phenomenon should be noted.

[sodality2]

Oh whoops we agree! sorry for making it sound like I disagree lol