top | item 45298278

(no title)

flare_blitz | 5 months ago

I can think of at least a dozen explanations less charitable than this one. Taking their word exactly at face value is not “something in the middle”.

discuss

order

tomnipotent|5 months ago

> least a dozen explanations less charitable than this one

Because you've already made up your mind that they're the bad guy, so it doesn't matter what really happened. One of the prevailing rules at HN used to be engage with the most charitable interpretation of an argument. It's always a better conversation when it's followed - this thread has just devolved into a bunch of pile-on virtue signaling with no actual interest in engaging honestly.

dxdm|5 months ago

I don't perceive this as virtue signalling, this is your own slightly uncharitable interpretation. People are responding to what they perceive as bullying in line with what looks like extremely heavy-handee sales tactics that do not seem uncommon.

It also looks like it only got addressed because it hit a someone with enough traction to go viral. That they had to resort to this channel at all raises questions in itself that go beyond the initial mistake and this particular customer.

So while I agree that we do not know yet what actually happened, the response from Salesforce so far does not really address these all concerns, and is not inconsistent with less charitable views on what's going on.

I think this is rightfully getting called out. With big power comes big responsibility.

flare_blitz|5 months ago

The fact of the matter is that Slack knew they were a nonprofit and made the deliberate decision to engage in the SaaS equivalent of rent-seeking. This is honest engagement, and given the circumstances I think people in this thread have been incredibly charitable.