|
| ▲ | chrismorgan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Framing a business decision as a security imperative sure sounds like intent to mislead to me. |
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Misdirection is normal business practice. For example, Quadpay/Zipco recently made a change where instead of appraising your credit independently for each of their plans, they calculate a total amount you're allowed to have in flight at any given time, and share that across everything. In their FAQ, there is an entry for "Is my purchasing power going down?" and the answer is some bullshit like "Your purchasing power is unified for a simpler and more streamlined experience bla bla" which doesn't actually answer the question. It's meant to defuse questioners without actually revealing that yes, total purchasing power did go down when they decreased the number of buckets that multiplied their appraisal. You're no longer allowed to pay a larger sum of money over a longer period of time - you get one amount that you're allowed over any term, and that amount of lower than what you could've been approved for before. Regardless of whether that's a good or bad decision (good for people with bad impulse control, for example), they are dishonest about it through lawyerspeak, which is the most standard business practice there is. You could argue that plenty of standard business practices are bad faith but I would say the capitalist idea of private corporations in the first place is bad faith. | | |
| ▲ | spockz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | How far have we fallen to call misdirection a normal business practice. I agree that it is everywhere but it isn’t or at least shouldn’t be normal. | | | |
| ▲ | thedevilslawyer an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Misdirection is misleading, and bad faith. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Gigachad 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The above statement is claiming it likely is intended as something bad though. A convenient coverup. |
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Covering something up is not bad faith. PR firms do it all the time (though plenty more do things in bad faith too). If what you're covering up is an explicitly user-hostile decision then maybe that's bad faith if what you're trying to do is trick people. But if you're just lying for brownie points then that's not always bad faith, just dumb. | | |
| ▲ | pseudalopex 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Hiding something to manipulate public perception is bad faith. | |
| ▲ | saghm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't agree with your definition here. Good faith means trying to be correct but potentially not being by accident. Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people; you know the truth is one thing, but you're saying something else to try to get them to believe it. | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What I'm saying is that even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie. That doesn't mean others can't be upset regardless of the lie's intent, but I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | croes 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > dishonest or unacceptable behaviour: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bad-fait... > I just think the security argument is a convenient frame for decisions that are actually about something else. That would mean they think it’s bad faith.
Claiming to do something because of A but to really do it because of B is dishonest |