The point about illegal retribution is really good. Notice how email #3 walked it right back and came up with an entirely different argument. They knew they screwed up.
Regardless of how bad what they were doing was, I don't think any of these except #2 are really realistic.
A good email explaining what they were doing, why and how they are going to correct it in the future should be sufficient.
Damage control should be "Oh crap, sorry we were just so dumb that we overlooked it" (which is most likely the case)
Flat out honesty is the best way to go here. (unless they were up to no good.. then well they deserve what they get)
Yep that was pretty skeevey, I’m glad they were held to account and stopped that, but it’s actually nothing to do with the point about not treating individual third parties differently.
I think the point is rather that the punishment of GoDaddy with serve as an example to future companies. It is forgone that they will see the errors of their ways, when it affects their cash flow. But I think the point is not to make them see their error, rather it serves as a broader example after the fact when someone reviews the history of how GoDaddy screwed up. Accepting that they have seen the light now that it has hit their bank account, will only serve to show future companies that it's OK so long as you say sorry after the screwing.
They mistakenly treated the corporation as a person, which noone should do. The corporation is accurately modeled as a sociopath. They misassumed the corporation would have the same honorable intent they did. They've hopefully learned their lesson.
They got what they wanted. It did sting a bit, but it was calculated.
They won't suffer any massive losses over that, they have the moral high ground among non tech people, who mistakenly believe that they're doing something to protect children.
An excellent point, however without prior approval and safety mechanisms, they were absolutely malicious in their acts. Treating them as anything but malicious, even if "for the greater good of OSS" sets a horrible precedent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is the quote that comes to mind. Minnesota got exactly what they deserve.
It doesn't really moot the point. If they did stuff as egregious as that, we can make inferences about the company, their goals, and other stuff that they could be doing.
They doubled down on their original mistake rather than admit what they did, even when it was quite clear the judge and opposing council was on to them. They should be disbarred.
You don't say anything that's not exactly right, but you're still missing the point.
They had the opportunity to own up to their mistake and seek the goodwill of the community. They missed that chance. Perhaps not "evil", but certainly worth some continued indignation.
Their statement actually isn't nearly as bad as you imply. They mention that there was a problem, that they handled it incorrectly, and that they were multiple conflicting factors associated. They even admit at the end (again) that they were wrong. It's short, sweet, and to the point. I think on the scale of 1 to horrible, this is pretty far from horrible.
reply