[tetrazine]

Hmmm. Inclined to agree if you replace the company in this argument with a person.

Very disinclined in actuality, since this is a company providing a service to people who have handed over custody of their personal data (It sounds like very high-value data! Cooking videos aren't easy to make!) under the assumption that they will get something out of the deal, i.e., the videos would be hosted and they would be warned if they were going to be deleted (or at least apologized to if they were deleted by accident and not lied to).

>>> If you can’t think of a reason that positively improves the world for us all, and all that you’ve got is “we should hold them up as an example for others to avoid”, this post already does so and without doxxing them.

Hmm, how about "we should hold them up as an example for users to avoid".

Doxxing doesn't exist for corporations, it only exists for individual people. The proper term of art here is whistleblowing or journalism. And the reason the author avoided mentioning the company name is probably to cover someone's ass who signed an NDA.

[brennebeck]

Yeah, generally agree with all this. I don’t think we need to shame them, as the gp initially mentions. But I personally have an interest in understanding the exact issue, seeing the response, etc. I.e. I believe there’s value in knowing the company, the actual incident, and so on.