|
| ▲ | lelanthran 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > What would you have them publish instead? The statement that is published places blame, if not accusations of criminal behaviour, on their business partner. IOW, they already overshared with the intent of damaging the reputation of their business partner. In my mind, they are already behind; had they released the standard business line "Our relationship with $X has come to an end; we apologise for any inconvenience caused" I wouldn't be so quick to judge them. But, now I *am judging them, because they clearly felt personally aggrieved by what happened, enough to imply the worst without actually coming out and saying what happened. |
| |
| ▲ | behringer 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | nobody wants corporate speak. They are saying they are cutting ties and it's not their fault. No harm in that if it's true. | | |
| ▲ | 306bobby 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There certainly could be harm if it's false though, which is the whole point. And they did not give any information to affirm who's fault (if anyone) it was besides hearsay | | |
| ▲ | behringer 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | that's not the point as far as I can tell. The parent was saying the remarks were oversharing, not false. |
| |
| ▲ | lelanthran 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > No harm in that if it's true. Same as saying "Behringer is a convicted paedophile": no harm if it's true, right? | | |
| ▲ | behringer 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you saying they're lying? That's a different issue than what I understood him to mean "it's unprofessional". It's flat out illegal. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mbreese 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would rather they published nothing. There is no need to make any of this public. Just stop selling Adafruit products and stop selling to Adafruit. If anyone asks, then you can say "we don't do business with them any longer". The public doesn't need the rationale. That's it. Everything else is dragging the community/customers into a fight that they didn't ask for. |
|
| ▲ | PurpleRamen 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What would you have them publish instead? Is there any duty to publish anything? They could release nothing, or nothing with any details, if they have some obligation. |
| |
| ▲ | danesparza 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but Sparkfun didn't "release nothing", and now they are opening themselves up to a libel suit. It would have been far better had they not published anything at this point. |
|
|
| ▲ | Rebelgecko 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Something more concrete like "on Tuesday at 9pm an adafruit employee sent an aggressive email which violated our COC by calling one of our employees a 'stupid fuckface'". I don't think that level of detail would be a privacy violation legally and imo not morally either |
|
| ▲ | Perz1val 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nothing, you either want to talk about a problem or not. Throwing vague, empty claims is just a cheap attack on other's company public image |
|
| ▲ | Twirrim 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nothing. They could just cut ties and be done with it. |
|
| ▲ | Hizonner 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you can't publish a complete, detailed, specific description of what you're alleging, with names, dates, quotes, and whatever, then you publish absolutely nothing. Publishing vague and unanswerable accusations is scumbag behavior. |
|
| ▲ | mohaine 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It seems like releasing more would have probably broken the exact same rules they are claiming AdaFruit broke. |
| |
| ▲ | notatoad 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | if they didn't want to say more, they should have said less. the way that normal serious businesses handle situations like this is to simply stop carrying the product, instead of publishing vague, unverifiable accusations of wrongdoing. and then if somebody notices and asks questions, you'd give a statement like "unfortunately we could not come to an agreement to continue our relationship with this vendor, but we're happy to be able to continue offering a number of other comprable products". |
|
|
| ▲ | CoastalCoder 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Your curiosity does not overcome the right to privacy of those involved. I agree in principle, but is there an actual right to privacy in this instance? I'm asking this in the legal sense, not a moral sense. |
| |
| ▲ | dec0dedab0de 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is no right to privacy, but they may have an NDA. Also, if they get too specific, they could open themselves up to a libel lawsuit. Though, if they were consulting a lawyer I don't think there would be any release. Simply cut business ties, and move on, it happens all the time, and would leave room to patch things up later. | | |
| ▲ | danesparza 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | "they could open themselves up to a libel lawsuit." They already have. | | |
| ▲ | KaiserPro 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think in this case it would be Defamation. But the claim is generic enough to be provable (ie private matter, private emails, CoC violation) | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | pepperball 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don’t attention whore on the internet if you want privacy. |
|
| ▲ | smeeagain2 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | cloudfudge 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | smeeagain2 says: > Maybe the AdaFruit founder said something unacceptable like "it's OK to be white" or "a man can't become an actual woman just by pretending that he is." That might explain the conflict. Why would you just invent identity politics issues to be mad about? | | |
|
