zlacker

[return to "Tell HN: Interviewed with Triplebyte? Your profile is about to become public"]
1. nabilh+C41[view] [source] 2020-05-23 15:57:13
>>winsto+(OP)
Assume for a moment I'm a bad-faith, nosy employer who reads HN on a Saturday morning. All it takes for me to match up my little stack of current employee's resumes is a person's city of residence, skills, and employment dates. If I'm that kind of employer, that's enough to raise my red flags. If prior employers are named outright, that's a 100% ID. If employment dates are paired with employment location, that's a 100% ID.

I've known employers like this. I've worked for employers like this. Employers are already monitoring social media. Third party services are paid by employers to monitor for staff that might be looking at other jobs. Recruiters make it their mission to know who's looking and what employers are likely to need their services in the near future. This is much of why trust and discretion is the most important asset on both sides of hiring related activities.

Triplebyte burning down their reputation as a recruitment avenue is one thing. Locking job searchers into reputation and livelihood risks inside Triplebyte's own reputation dumpster fire, on the friday before a holiday weekend, during historic unemployment levels, in the middle of a fucking pandemic, is unforgivable. The CEO showing up in person with hamfisted gaslighting (seriously?) in the middle of this self made disaster makes me hope those comments don't get flagged out of future HN search results.

◧◩
2. TAForO+n91[view] [source] 2020-05-23 16:29:50
>>nabilh+C41
> those comments don't get flagged out of future HN search results.

Triplebyte is a YC company and HN is a YC site, so economic interests are aligned with nuking highly critical comments

◧◩◪
3. troyda+Pd1[view] [source] 2020-05-23 17:03:04
>>TAForO+n91
> economic interests are aligned with nuking highly critical comments

This is theoretically true, but the fact that it's been on the home page for 12 hours and has accumulated hundreds of critical comments, none of which any mod has touched, seems to (a) eliminate that possibility and (b) demonstrate that the risk is theoretical, not actual.

(Keep in mind that YC has thousands of investments, so whatever you think of their ethics or the incentives, a filter like this would be impractical and obvious. Also see "Not behaving in a way that damages the reputation of his/her company" on https://www.ycombinator.com/ethics/ - it's hard to imagine YC supporting this.)

◧◩◪◨
4. wolfga+mg1[view] [source] 2020-05-23 17:21:12
>>troyda+Pd1
In fact the only (public) mod action was to put it back on the homepage after it tripped the flamewar detector and fell off.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. gansty+pn1[view] [source] 2020-05-23 18:20:51
>>wolfga+mg1
This thread rose to the top group of the front page last night (you can see I posted here then, I happened to see it). Then it sunk quickly and disappeared. I was a little dismayed because the cynic in me was thinking along the lines of it being removed for being antithetical to YC company success. I went to bed.

To my surprise, it was back up near the top this morning with almost a thousand votes and hundreds of comments. TripleByte may have chosen to burn their reputation irreparably, but I have gained a lot of faith in YC and the mods here.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. dang+hz1[view] [source] 2020-05-23 20:00:34
>>gansty+pn1
It fell because of a software penalty called the flamewar detector. We review posts that get that penalty because there are often false positives. I saw it on the list last night and restored it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280488). That was the only action any moderator took on the post. I'm glad I saw it quickly enough, because there would have been a nightmare of a flamewar about us 'suppressing' the post if we had missed this, when in reality it would just have been an accident of timing.

That raises the obvious question of why we have such software if it causes such problems, but the answer is simply that it helps more than it hurts, overall.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. raveni+Fl2[view] [source] 2020-05-24 03:35:22
>>dang+hz1
Thank you for not incorrectly saying "that begs the question of..."
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. dang+Jy2[view] [source] 2020-05-24 06:47:21
>>raveni+Fl2
Bullet dodged.
[go to top]