This apology seems very generic and sterile to me. People are boycotting their product so they apologized. They should have communicated with their users to begin with before taking such harsh actions.
Saying "they should have acted differently to begin with" isn't a valid criticism of an apology, or it would apply to all apologies.
“If you were sorry you wouldn’t have done it to begin with” has also come up on several occasions in my personal life. Haven’t figured out how best to respond to that one.
Saying "they should have acted differently to begin with" isn't a valid criticism of an apology, or it would apply to all apologies.
That was my point. Unless the apology is of the type "it accidentally got deployed before we had the opportunity to test the change and communicate to users..." then they shouldn't have done it to begin with.
So you are saying we are never allowed to make mistakes?
Are people actually boycotting their product? They very clearly see their free users as their non-primary market (no automatic invites, no tools for individuals to block individuals because your HR department is supposed to deal with it, limited archives, etc.) and I'm not sure a "boycott" of a free service even counts anyway. And a paying customer is not going to be able to drop Slack on one day's notice any more th…
You can block users now? At megacorp we definitely couldn't, and as much as there were people I wanted to block and mandatory channels I didn't want to be in… all of the frigging the bots were the most unbearable.
Are people actually boycotting their product? They very clearly see their free users as their non-primary market (no automatic invites, no tools for individuals to block individuals because your HR department is supposed to deal with it, limited archives, etc.) and I'm not sure a "boycott" of a free service even counts anyway. And a paying customer is not going to be able to drop Slack on one day's notice any more th…
My Twitter is full of academics with students and collaborators from all over the world that are complaining that Slack just eliminated their ability for them to communicate over the service. I'm not sure how many of them were free or paid though.
Being involuntarily prevented from using a service is rather the opposite of boycotting, I think. (In the sense that boycotts are a tool of applying economic pressure to convince someone to change their mind, and if you're being kicked off you aren't actually able to exert any pressure.)
This apology seems very generic and sterile to me. People are boycotting their product so they apologized. They should have communicated with their users to begin with before taking such harsh actions.
Are people actually boycotting their product? They very clearly see their free users as their non-primary market (no automatic invites, no tools for individuals to block individuals because your HR department is supposed to deal with it, limited archives, etc.) and I'm not sure a "boycott" of a free service even counts anyway. And a paying customer is not going to be able to drop Slack on one day's notice any more th…
All the same, it's good they took responsibility when they did. I don't use Slack at work at present, but being an emigrant worker myself (not iranian, but honestly it shouldn't really matter), the past week's events left enough of an impression on me that I would have likely strongly protested any attempts in my organization at getting a slack channel going. This response is at least well-written enough that it gives me pause, that I should research the company's track record more carefully before jumping to judgment. (they're still on thin ice as far as I'm concerned, but it's a step in the right direction)
Saying "they should have acted differently to begin with" isn't a valid criticism of an apology, or it would apply to all apologies.
“If you were sorry you wouldn’t have done it to begin with” has also come up on several occasions in my personal life. Haven’t figured out how best to respond to that one.
If you did something wrong more than once and gave the same apology that statement would make total sense. The first time though is unfair and kind of selfish minded.
My Twitter is full of academics with students and collaborators from all over the world that are complaining that Slack just eliminated their ability for them to communicate over the service. I'm not sure how many of them were free or paid though.
Being involuntarily prevented from using a service is rather the opposite of boycotting, I think. (In the sense that boycotts are a tool of applying economic pressure to convince someone to change their mind, and if you're being kicked off you aren't actually able to exert any pressure.)
It isn't those that got kicked off that are boycotting. It is those that had students or collaborators get kicked off, that are now refusing to use Slack.
Saying "they should have acted differently to begin with" isn't a valid criticism of an apology, or it would apply to all apologies.
That was my point. Unless the apology is of the type "it accidentally got deployed before we had the opportunity to test the change and communicate to users..." then they shouldn't have done it to begin with.
Your point is that you don't know what an apology is.