[ruswick]

There's no evidence to suggest that this was malicious in any way, nor anything to suggest that FC intended to "trick" him. Plenty of service implement these types of defaults, and bugs occasionally happen.

He's taking a presumptuous "principled" stand against something that is not necessarily an ethical issue. Sometimes shit just breaks. He has no idea whether there was any malicious intent, nor has he even finished dealing with FC customer service. (I bet they'll give him a refund.)

He is writing a screed based on an unproven assumption about an incident that will probably be amended by FC. This seems like linkbait.

[JoeAltmaier]

The company's web page is their agent to the web world. No matter why that agent cheated this guy; its the companies fault. That's how agency works.

Sure we as engineers can diagnose what web error caused the issue. But we can also surely imagine its not the first time tech support has handled the matter, and its still a problem.

At this point there is plenty to blame the company for, even with a liberal tolerance for incompetence. Why not fix the bug? Its easy to not fix a bug that's raking in money.

To be called a responsible company, they have to fix those bugs FIRST.