[Semiapies]

Could you please explain why it is "wrong" to publicly criticize a company that is misbehaving, particularly one that centers its business largely around being a venue for public criticisms of other companies?

This premise keeps being bandied around by GS defenders here and elsewhere, and I'd really like to hear the logic behind it.

[webwright]

Sure-- though I think saying that GS is "centered" around "public criticism" is wrong. It's centered around getting help and being heard.

I separate willful misbehaving from bad judgment and mistakes. Startups are like children- they flail around and make mistakes (lord knows mine does!). If a child/startup does something bad without intending to do evil, I think a quiet correction is a good idea.

Example: A child spills juice all over the floor in a classroom. Is it right for an influential classmate announce his clumsiness to the class and lecture the class on how sticky juice on the floor is a terribly thing, inconveniencing everyone? If spilled juice is a big deal, you could STILL go public with a, "Hey, Billy didn't mean it-- but this is a good opportunity to discuss the perils of spilled juice and why we should be so careful with out juiceboxes".

If the act was a result of malice or shameful neglect, then I think a public thrashing is more appropriate. GS clearly fucked up, but I think there are plenty of scenarios where that fuckup could've been a result of a hurried design/review process, an errant employee, or just plain bad judgment. You can read the founder's letter describing how the design decisions happened ( http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2009/03/31/open-letter-to-ja... ). It's a pretty credible story.

It doesn't excuse the mistake, but it should make us lean towards leniency in the punishment-- especially considering that all of us are in the same boat (37s, HN Founders, etc).

A lot of it comes down the the style of the attack by 37s and the influence they wield. Vigilante mobs are easy to summon but hard to dismiss. The internet is forever, so if you damage a party (or damage them way more than they deserve), it's very hard to repair.

IMO, one of the biggest problems with the human race is that we don't seek to understand before we condemn. I'd kinda hoped that the HN community would give a startup that's pretty clearly trying NOT to be evil here the benefit of the doubt.

[Semiapies]

"It's centered around getting help and being heard." By airing complaints in a public forum.

I'm afraid that to me the whole scenario and fallout more resembles one child poking another in the eye with a pencil, followed by all the child's friends complaining about how the kid totally cried and went to the teacher...and the first kid griping about tattle-tales even as he promises to be more careful with his pencil in the future.

GS has gotten bad press for actual things that it has done. It doesn't matter that they're just a few guys, or that they're a bunch of awesome people who mean no wrong, as many of their defenders insist. They did things that quite fairly deserve askance looks and criticism, and their burden will be to correct those things and attempt to earn back any lost confidence. Comparing this to a "vigilante mob" is hyperbolic, distasteful, and rather fanboyish.

EDIT: Or, to put it another way - nobody likes having their business criticized. People even dislike seeing businesses they really like criticized. When the criticisms are valid, though, it's time to stop arguing against them, even in the passive aggressive manner of saying things like "We all know what it’s like to feel manipulated," (emphasis in original) and just promise to do better.

[tptacek]

A lot of well-intentioned mistakes have serious negative consequences. This is one example, but trust me, I've seen worse. GetSatisfaction will go on.

Not only that, but they'll be much more careful in the future (when the dust settles). All of us --- customers and companies --- will be better off for this experience.

[catz]

> particularly one that centers its business largely around being a venue for public criticisms of other companies?

Companies such as that is vitally necessary. If you ever had dealings with a large shit company you would understand (e.g. a company that does not pick up the phones). The relationship between a large company and a consumer is completely asymmetrical.

Most companies can only be encouraged if they receive bad publicity. I do not have experience with GS but I have with a similar site (http://www.hellopeter.co.za ).

Also, it is a free speech issue - if customers of a company wants to voice their complaints about a company it is their right - GS only provides a platform for that.

EDIT: There are some companies (e.g. telephone companies, bad webhosts and banks) whose relationship with the customer is that of apathy or hate. Sites like the above is vitally necessary for that.

Some companies also have a customer service model that is based on crises management and extinguishing fires. To get your problem handled you have to create as big as a fire for them to encourage them to respond.

[Semiapies]

"Companies such as that is vitally necessary."

True, but I was not saying they weren't.

"Also, it is a free speech issue"

No, it is not. Nobody here has said GS shouldn't exist or be able to collect complaints about companies. They've only criticized them for doing things that verged on impersonating those companies by making official-looking "customer support" pages for them.

The only anti-free speech remarks made have been those by a very few people accusing Fried of defamation.