Tell HN: Triplebyte reverses, emails apology

Post by phreack » Mon, May 25, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

ammon wrote: post #83

phreack wrote: post #17

One of the first things they could do is stop with the dark patterns. The original thread had many people mentioning that deleting an account was a ridiculous process, with a 30-day delay once you managed to start it.

Yeah... we made this better yesterday (removed the delay and the request for ID). It was totally a dark pattern. We built the initial deletion process right after GDPR passed. We were thinking about it mostly from a legal perspective then, and had not reviewed it since.

Post by wolfgang42 » Mon, May 25, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #79

photonios wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negativity towards to original announcement of making profiles public was deserved. For me, the negativity towards the CEO's apology and cancelling the feature is not. Everyone makes mistakes and if nobody would be willing to look past that, then we'd never get anywhere.

It would have gone over a lot better if he didn't spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it. And it would have gone over a lot better if he was honest about what happened. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he's all "was that wrong? Should I not have done that?". They knew exactly what they were doing and calculated that it was worth it.

Post by washitallaway » Mon, May 25, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

samel1994 wrote: post #110

rebotfc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise that if you have any European users you have majorly contravened GDPR regulations and data protection rules. I'm talking 20 million euros in fines

Triplebyte is not for EU users. You're forgetting that Triplebyte is an American company, they're not subject to European nanny laws.

Post by AlexCoventry » Mon, May 25, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #192

krn wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought that opt-out was the way to get critical mass But what about following every dark pattern in the book to prevent people from actually opting out[1][2]? There was not even an option to opt-out indefinitely. It seemed like an extremely carefully engineered effort to trick the users. How can something like this be considered "unintentional"? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280040 [2] https://news.…

Regarding [2] This is extremely bad, like Google+ forced-real-name-policies bad..! (For those who wonder: that and the Buzz incident made lots of people hate or at least distrust Google.) Why why why do companies do this? During the last 6 months I've stopped logging into Stack Overflow. It is a nice resource but for me it is read only for now because they messed up so hard - and refused to come up with a real apolog…

Post by yomly » Mon, May 25, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

JshWright wrote: post #144

username3 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't spend a couple days on HN telling people they shouldn't be mad about it.

He certainly spent a great deal of time saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" (a classic non-apology... there's no better way to make a bad situation worse than by starting off with those words).