[chrismorgan]

> I want to be fair to Cal.com here, because I don’t think they’re acting in bad faith. I just think the security argument is a convenient frame for decisions that are actually about something else. […] Framing a business decision as a security imperative does a disservice to the open-source ecosystem that helped Cal.com get to where they are.

That sure sounds like bad faith to me.

[dirkc]

This rest of the article contrasts the with "I don’t think they’re acting in bad faith"

This bit stands out to me:

> You can’t take five years of community contributions, close the gate, and claim you’re grateful. I don’t think it works that way.

I think it's safe to say that Sam is not impressed with the the Cal.com decision and the way they framed it.

[LoganDark]

Bad faith requires you to intend it badly, though, not just for it to be bad.

[chrismorgan]

Framing a business decision as a security imperative sure sounds like intent to mislead to me.

[LoganDark]

Misdirection is normal business practice. For example, Quadpay/Zipco recently made a change where instead of appraising your credit independently for each of their plans, they calculate a total amount you're allowed to have in flight at any given time, and share that across everything. In their FAQ, there is an entry for "Is my purchasing power going down?" and the answer is some bullshit like "Your purchasing power is unified for a simpler and more streamlined experience bla bla" which doesn't actually answer the question. It's meant to defuse questioners without actually revealing that yes, total purchasing power did go down when they decreased the number of buckets that multiplied their appraisal. You're no longer allowed to pay a larger sum of money over a longer period of time - you get one amount that you're allowed over any term, and that amount of lower than what you could've been approved for before. Regardless of whether that's a good or bad decision (good for people with bad impulse control, for example), they are dishonest about it through lawyerspeak, which is the most standard business practice there is. You could argue that plenty of standard business practices are bad faith but I would say the capitalist idea of private corporations in the first place is bad faith.

[spockz]

How far have we fallen to call misdirection a normal business practice. I agree that it is everywhere but it isn’t or at least shouldn’t be normal.

[Chaosvex]

Pertinent comment from earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801845

[soraminazuki]

Yeah, there's a difference between normal conduct and normalized conduct. It sure is a sign of the times that people are confused by this.

[miki123211]

Related: I wish there was a TV show where they would ask simple yes/no questions to politicians and business leaders, but their mic would only be unmuted after they press a "yes" or "no" button.

Answering a yes/no question with a "we're doing everything we can to ensure a smooth experience for our customers" is spindoctoring 101.

[embedding-shape]

But that's not how people generally hold their opinions or even should (I'd argue). You can ask me "Yes or no, should we kill people?" and I can't really give you hard "yes" or "no", there is nuance and context to consider, and probably most beliefs I hold, have some sort of nuance.

Unless you're also asking politicians to all become 100% dogmatic, I don't think that's a realistic suggestion.

[loloquwowndueo]

They’d just press whatever and then start their verbal reply with “yes and no”

[blipvert]

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

[actionfromafar]

Could you ask misleading questions? Answer yes or no.

[dspillett]

> Misdirection is normal business practice.

Being normal practice does not make something right.

[thedevilslawyer]

Misdirection is misleading, and bad faith.

[croes]

> dishonest or unacceptable behaviour:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bad-fait...

> I just think the security argument is a convenient frame for decisions that are actually about something else.

That would mean they think it’s bad faith. Claiming to do something because of A but to really do it because of B is dishonest

[Gigachad]

The above statement is claiming it likely is intended as something bad though. A convenient coverup.

[LoganDark]

Covering something up is not bad faith. PR firms do it all the time (though plenty more do things in bad faith too). If what you're covering up is an explicitly user-hostile decision then maybe that's bad faith if what you're trying to do is trick people. But if you're just lying for brownie points then that's not always bad faith, just dumb.

[pseudalopex]

Hiding something to manipulate public perception is bad faith.

[saghm]

I don't agree with your definition here. Good faith means trying to be correct but potentially not being by accident. Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people; you know the truth is one thing, but you're saying something else to try to get them to believe it.

[LoganDark]

What I'm saying is that even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie. That doesn't mean others can't be upset regardless of the lie's intent, but I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith.

[pseudalopex]

> I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith.

No one said this.

[swiftcoder]

> even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie

And the intent here is to intentionally mislead, so how is that not bad faith?