[zzzeek]

> Please don't pile on like this when someone is showing up to fix something.

how do you know they're "showing up to fix something" and not simply servicing the "10% returns" end of a widespread scheme to shake down customers? This has every bit the look of "shake all the low-paying customers down as much as possible, if one of them manages to raise too much awareness, act like it was an isolated incident".

It matters a lot of this is an isolated incident or if this is par for the course; in the latter case, responding to those customers that were lucky enough to go viral is just part of the scheme proceeding as planned.

[dang]

I don't know, of course. What I do know is the effect of repeatedly assuming the worst about other people and pounding them with unprocessed rage, which is what internet indignation is all about. The effect is that it poisons community. Since we want a good community, we should avoid doing that here.

[akudha]

I suppose people get automatically annoyed because who the owner of Slack is. It is reasonable to assume bad practices if the company is too large to care, have multiple prior bad incidents etc - that is why people automatically assume guilt with companies like Oracle, Comcast, Salesforce etc etc. If the company in question was a small 50 person outfit or unknown, people might assume it was an honest mistake or at least give benefit of the doubt.

Not saying it is right or wrong - just pointing out that people's patience is in short supply when it comes to mega corps, simply because of their very bad track records...

[dang]

Yes. No argument here about that.

[baubino]

I agree that we shouldn’t pile on and assume the worst. However, multiple comments have asked what Slack will do to ensure this doesn’t happen again, which is important pressure to put on the corporation so that they can show (and not just tell us) that they truly are committed to fixing this problem.

[tadfisher]

This was their answer to that question:

> We will be reviewing our billing and communications processes to provide nonprofits clearer guidance and adequate grace periods as they grow.

I don't think we're going to get a different answer if we ask again, and frankly I wouldn't expect one.

[johnnyanmac]

Yes, and that's the frustrating part of it all. I'm tired of turning the other cheek for companies that are ransacking us financially and exhausting us emotionally. It shouldn't take a public drama for a business to be proressional. Clearly leaving it as "we'll fix it, oppsie" isn't far enough.

[zzzeek]

I dont know that we should assume the worst but you are assuming the best, that's what irks me more here. my position is that we should be skeptical and demand (politely, civilly, that is all fine) more information about what is the nature of this mistake, why did it happen, and what do we know about the same mistake happening elsewhere? the parent post was just "this is a mistake, we're fixing it, giggles", I would argue that's insufficient.

[throwaway_fjmr]

They are not "other people", they are company offering services.

[dang]

Every HN user is a person regardless of where they work, and everyone here is posting first as a human being, same as you and I are. That's how we all need to relate to each other. Work affiliations don't obviate that, and there's no substantive point or question that can't be posted this way.

[ahnberg]

I appreciate your comments and hugops! This is what the community should be about! <3

[johnnyanmac]

About being used to pressure companies, but not TOO much so they keep pushing that button?

[dang]

About learning to relate to each other better. Doesn't that sound ok?