[_karie_]

Because you don't agree doesn't make the legitimate callout (i.e., victim-blaming “what were you wearing” vs. calling someone “unhinged” after they've endured repeated abuse/stress) a logical fallacy. Rather it positions you in opposition.

Everything you disagree with isn't incorrect.

[cortesoft]

I don't really see any evidence of abuse in this post, though. It doesn't really say what Microsoft did, other than ban them from github after they said they will "make Microsoft's bones shatter".

It reads to me like Microsoft didn't pay him what he thought he earned from the exploits (i have no idea who is in the right on that), and then he published a zero day with no notification and threatened the company. Doesn't seem ridiculous to ban them at that point.

Again, I don't know the details so I cant say who is in the right, but the researcher comes off as a little bit unhinged and entitled. Not paying a bug bounty is 'ruining my life'?

[_karie_]

> Again, I don't know the details so I cant say who is in the right

You are unsure of the details, so you instinctively choose to align with the $3T corporation. Further you assert the responsible discloser is "unhinged" for having a reaction to sustained abusive behavior by that $3T corporation.

Who exactly is unhinged here: the person who had a human reaction to abuse, or the person who thinks they are social in-group status with Microsoft? My vote is on the latter.