[8cvor6j844qw_d6]

> “CVD is a two-way street,” he said. “The vendor has some responsibility as well, so to go out publicly stating this person violated CVD without showing any of the correspondence seems bold.”

> “It confusingly claims their program ‘ensures researchers are compensated and publicly acknowledged’ in a statement answering a researcher who says he got neither,”

Well said.

[zamalek]

I would argue that this form of disclosure is ethical in the face of Microsoft misbehaving. It's like mutually assured destruction - and in this case (it sounds like) Microsoft tried to cheat and thought they would get away with it.

Feeling consequences are how they are kept in line. Maybe next time they will think twice before (allegedly) treating a person like they did here, as well as the creative reasoning I recall them using in the past to reduce payouts.

[thewebguyd]

> the creative reasoning I recall them using in the past to reduce payouts.

It's a wonder anyone even reports things to Microsoft anymore because of this. They have a long habit of declaring things as intentional, then silently patching it after.

[12_throw_away]

TBH, the microsoft statement itself feels like slop. Not necessarily LLM slop (although who are we kidding, it probably was), but definitely like corporate slop, written by some manager with no context for how any of this is supposed to work (they laid off all the people who did), but with a need to make some sort of statement-shaped response