zlacker

[parent] [thread] 49 comments
1. ammon+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-05-23 05:22:22
Really sorry that you think this is awful. Certainly do opt-out. I think that taking on LinkedIn and creating a better engineering resume is a good thing to do. I can assure you that the Friday announcement is a result of our team grinding to hit a planned release week, not anything other than that (I would have loved to get this out earlier in the week)
replies(16): >>wolfga+h >>austhr+p1 >>new_gu+u1 >>akisel+G1 >>kemono+P1 >>conduc+83 >>intera+C4 >>bkovac+66 >>franci+d9 >>ponker+M9 >>jacque+nd >>op00to+DA >>wodeno+wC >>TomVDB+UG >>wbroni+MJ >>kerkes+q01
2. wolfga+h[view] [source] 2020-05-23 05:25:50
>>ammon+(OP)
Maybe you should have considered the timing more carefully rather than rushing to keep it in the sprint? Pushing it out last minute just makes you sound desperate rather than shady, which isn’t much of an improvement.
replies(1): >>gansty+91
◧◩
3. gansty+91[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 05:34:03
>>wolfga+h
And this should have been opt in, not "opt out within a week or else we'll dump your info and association with us onto the internet."
4. austhr+p1[view] [source] 2020-05-23 05:37:37
>>ammon+(OP)
>I think that taking on LinkedIn and creating a better engineering resume is a good thing to do.

Clearly and obviously not the part people are upset about. Cmon mate.

5. new_gu+u1[view] [source] 2020-05-23 05:38:45
>>ammon+(OP)
Isn't this breaching GDPR regulations along with a host of others?
replies(1): >>jacque+sd
6. akisel+G1[view] [source] 2020-05-23 05:40:21
>>ammon+(OP)
Really sorry that you are completely tone deaf.

You're not taking on LinkedIn, you're just trying to get a bigger piece of that good ole dark pattern pie.

7. kemono+P1[view] [source] 2020-05-23 05:42:05
>>ammon+(OP)
Please consider making this change opt-in rather than opt-out. Imagine an employer finding someone's profile and seeing a mismatch between their qualifications on Triplebyte versus what they might have said in an interview, and having a negative impact on their prospects.

I do think it's an urgent matter and something that can and will come to bite you later- HN Is how I found out myself and I don't really think right now is the moment to play silly games with people's privacy, and not everybody may keep in touch with Triplebyte after their assessments.

8. conduc+83[view] [source] 2020-05-23 05:57:05
>>ammon+(OP)
> I would have loved to get this out earlier in the week

You didn’t launch anything. All you had to do was edit the “1 week” part of your email and you could have sent earlier

Also, are you genuinely surprised by this backlash? Did you really think making people’s info public was going to be a popular decision? It’s hard for me to understand how common sense doesn’t prevail in this situation.

9. intera+C4[view] [source] 2020-05-23 06:19:25
>>ammon+(OP)
Hey Ammon, the idea is good, it's solid. Nothing bad there. I think everyone knows LinkedIn has it's issues. But like come on. Why make everyone's private job search public? by default no less!?

How can we trust triplebite with our career, finance information and personal information when you pull these kinds of moves. Make a good product. If it's actually good people will sign up.

replies(3): >>ammon+d5 >>indemn+vc >>catalo+Xj1
◧◩
10. ammon+d5[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 06:27:56
>>intera+C4
We're not making anyone's job search details pubic. All that the profile will show is that an engineer created a Triplebyte profile at some point in the past, and any badges they earned.
replies(12): >>remote+s7 >>domado+d8 >>reific+39 >>iovrth+p9 >>ALittl+J9 >>localc+Yb >>indemn+Ic >>prepen+fI >>Dayshi+gL >>yaur+DM >>ashton+V51 >>sah2ed+f91
11. bkovac+66[view] [source] 2020-05-23 06:37:48
>>ammon+(OP)
Why is a government ID required for account deletion process - you never asked for it during the registration process?
◧◩◪
12. remote+s7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 06:51:41
>>ammon+d5
“We aren’t making anyone’s subscription status public. All that their profile will show is the fact at some point in time they registered an account on Pornhub with their email address and real name, and any badges they earned.”
◧◩◪
13. domado+d8[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 07:01:28
>>ammon+d5
It'd be helpful for you to spell out what exactly will be public. Even the simple fact that a so-and-so has a Triplebyte profile might be an unwelcome involuntary public disclosure to that person, if they're a current user who didn't read your email and fails to opt out. The (possibly unintended) lack of upfront clarity regarding what exactly will be public by default is also not helpful. Software engineers are probably more likely that other members of society to have strong opinions and expectations about their online privacy, and are probably more likely to be upset if they feel those expectations are violated.
◧◩◪
14. reific+39[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 07:13:39
>>ammon+d5
I had added TripleByte to the list of resources to use on my next job hunt, that was a mistake.

I have made a note of this singular action along with your repeated refusal in this thread to acknowledge the harm you are causing.

People don't want their current employer to know about their job searches, period. There's a difference in magnitude between this and the Ashley Madison leak, but it's the same concept. Having a profile at all is a clear sign to your current employer. It doesn't matter what you were doing with it or when you created the account.

15. franci+d9[view] [source] 2020-05-23 07:15:31
>>ammon+(OP)
I think everyone here would agree taking on Linkedin is a very good thing to do, especially Triplebyte who was already in a good position and fairly well considered here.

But not this way, not forcing all of your users into a public profile by default and making them provide gvmt ids to delete their accounts. Your users gave you their data for a specific purpose, and you took it and used it totally differently. This seems like a great violation of GDPR BTW.

replies(1): >>anemos+2m
◧◩◪
16. iovrth+p9[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 07:17:59
>>ammon+d5
Oh, no. Stop repeating the line and listen to the user.
◧◩◪
17. ALittl+J9[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 07:22:47
>>ammon+d5
Given your demonstrated propensity for making previously private information public, shouldn't we evaluate your claim as "We're not making anyone's job search details public yet."

I wonder, what future value will you find by giving away more private information? I know by this example that you won't even wait for the consent of your users before you exploit their private information.

18. ponker+M9[view] [source] 2020-05-23 07:23:02
>>ammon+(OP)
Crunchbase tells me that you have raised $50m. This means you have someone who runs your communications and you hopefully have some kind of PR or crisis management firm on retainer or at least in your Rolodex.

Call them on the phone right now before you make more bad decisions.

replies(1): >>quickt+rl2
◧◩◪
19. localc+Yb[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 07:51:07
>>ammon+d5
All over this thread you are responding about the details not being public.

The existence of the job search itself is the issue. I'm not sure what's not getting through about that.

replies(1): >>gherig+Tc
◧◩
20. indemn+vc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 07:56:22
>>intera+C4
It’s the Zuckerberg playbook.

There will be some other time in the future where you’ll have to come back to opt out again.

Deletion of your account will be a soft delete, with the account popping back up again and again like a weed.

The sooner these types run out of VC money the better.

◧◩◪
21. indemn+Ic[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 07:57:47
>>ammon+d5
If you’re playing defense you’ve already lost. Listen to your customers.
◧◩◪◨
22. gherig+Tc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 07:59:03
>>localc+Yb
Because they are pivoting which is a nice way of saying failing.

Now if this blows up there is an even bigger target on Ammon's back and he may be panicking. That or he is a scumbag. Could be both.

23. jacque+nd[view] [source] 2020-05-23 08:02:40
>>ammon+(OP)
> Really sorry that you think this is awful.

Classic non-apology apology. You should not be sorry that he thinks it is awful, you should be sorry that it is awful.

Nobody cares about how much work you put into what amounts to an illegal disclosure of personal data.

replies(2): >>gruez+sS >>cranky+Ay1
◧◩
24. jacque+sd[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 08:03:37
>>new_gu+u1
Pity to see this downvoted, yes it is!
replies(1): >>908087+Kb1
◧◩
25. anemos+2m[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 09:30:26
>>franci+d9
I am from EU, I live in Switzerland and I can tell it clearly is a GDPR violation. I’ve just sent a reply email and a account deletion request. The govt ID thing is shady, given the fact that they never requested it at sign up and that wouldn’t serve as a proof. I hope they will delete my account by the mentioned 30 days or I will fill a lawsuit. Besides common sense, privacy and trust do not work like that, at least in Switzerland and in EU. As a user, I would have been so happy to be informed about this important step (which is actually exciting) of a company I liked. And I would have been so happy to be actively involved and engaged in this step by being guided into discovering the new features / roadmap and THEN make my own decision about the opt-in. That would have been a huge win-win. I am wondering if it’s a lack of common sense or the pressure or VC funding here. That’s a pity for what I’ve considered a good company, and I hope they will revert this decision.
replies(1): >>gruez+GT
26. op00to+DA[view] [source] 2020-05-23 12:33:16
>>ammon+(OP)
You apologize for your actions, not because someone had a reaction to something you did. I suggest therapy.
27. wodeno+wC[view] [source] 2020-05-23 12:56:17
>>ammon+(OP)
Sera HN: Please don’t downvoted these kinds of replies from relevant people.

They are super interesting given the link, so why try and hide them?

replies(2): >>chrism+tK >>ashton+dF1
28. TomVDB+UG[view] [source] 2020-05-23 13:34:49
>>ammon+(OP)
The Internet craves a good dumpster fire every once in a while, with truly evil company actions, tone deaf non-apology apology CEOs, and a certain future collapse.

Thanks for the entertainment!

◧◩◪
29. prepen+fI[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 13:44:58
>>ammon+d5
The primary reason people sign up with your service is job search. Having a profile most likely indicates job search and will certainly be interpreted as such by many managers and employers, I expect.

It’s like explaining to your spouse of 5 years why you have a profile on a dating site that started 3 years ago.

30. wbroni+MJ[view] [source] 2020-05-23 13:58:34
>>ammon+(OP)
Does it matter what you think here though? Your customers gave you their data under one pretense, why do you think you can ethically change that pretense without discussing it with your customers? Said another way, you entered into a business deal with your customers and unilaterally changed the terms. I feel like if someone did that to you, you would be upset as well.

People in this thread have carefully laid out the dark patterns you are using to trick your customers into allowing you to try and make more money. This is wildly unethical, and coming to defend it on here shows us clearly that you have not thought about this from any perspective but your own.

Good luck with your company, you’re going to need it.

replies(1): >>perl4e+WJ1
◧◩
31. chrism+tK[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 14:04:52
>>wodeno+wC
I think few people are interested in responses other than "we will stop doing that"
replies(1): >>MertsA+wt1
◧◩◪
32. Dayshi+gL[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 14:10:50
>>ammon+d5
Hi, I've had the same job for ten years. You were founded later than that, so my current employer knows I used it while working for them.

Is that OK with you?

◧◩◪
33. yaur+DM[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 14:21:55
>>ammon+d5
Imagine that you are the CEO of Ashley Maddison making this argument...
◧◩
34. gruez+sS[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 15:05:24
>>jacque+nd
Relevant: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20070226-01/?p=27...

>In the politician’s apology, you apologize not for the offense itself, but for the fact that what you did offended someone. “I’m sorry you’re a hypersensitive crybaby.”

◧◩◪
35. gruez+GT[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 15:15:20
>>anemos+2m
>I hope they will delete my account by the mentioned 30 days or I will fill a lawsuit

AFAIK unlike the CCPA, there's no private right of action for the GDPR. That is to say, you can't actually sue the violators yourself, you need to complain to your country's national data protection authority, and they have to take action.

36. kerkes+q01[view] [source] 2020-05-23 16:01:56
>>ammon+(OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSh0wHBGySg&t=1m16s
◧◩◪
37. ashton+V51[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 16:41:23
>>ammon+d5
Which is enough to identify people who are looking for a new job.
◧◩◪
38. sah2ed+f91[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 17:04:30
>>ammon+d5
> We're not making anyone's job search details pubic. All that the profile will show is that an engineer created a Triplebyte profile at some point in the past, and any badges they earned.

You are totally missing the point. You think the change significantly improves your product, but your users perceive the change as a massive breach of trust. Why? Because the underlying JTBD (job-to-be-done) for a lot of engineers is discreet job searching. IOW, for a lot of people, a public TB profile would be like having a private Ashley Madison profile [0] exposed to the public. Ashley Madison was a major source of embarrassment for many when they suffered a breach.

Rather than double-down, might be time to step back a bit. The aphorism "the market's perception is your reality" is especially instructive.

[0] The Ashley Madison metaphor used by this commenter is especially apt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280782

◧◩◪
39. 908087+Kb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 17:22:39
>>jacque+sd
There seems to be a strong urge on this forum to downvote anything that informs users of the things GDPR does to help them, most likely because a large portion of the people on this forum have a vested interest in being able to abuse users in ways that go against the GDPR.
replies(1): >>erik_s+dR1
◧◩
40. catalo+Xj1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 18:30:03
>>intera+C4
That ammon would even consider doing this proves that he's no better than linkedin anyway. What a fool.
◧◩◪
41. MertsA+wt1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 19:51:53
>>chrism+tK
Downvotes aren't supposed to be "I don't like you" buttons. This is literally the man who wrote the email responding to the thread about the announcement. Regardless of how anyone feels about the response this should absolutely be the top comment on this thread. I shouldn't need to turn on "showdead" and highlight the comment just to read statements directly from the horses mouth as it were.
◧◩
42. cranky+Ay1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 20:29:42
>>jacque+nd
Indeed. That's on par with:

"I'm sorry you're an idiot."

Not an apology, an insult, and feigning to be apologizing about you (which is doubly insulting).

replies(1): >>johnny+SA2
◧◩
43. ashton+dF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 21:16:26
>>wodeno+wC
A downvote represents my displeasure with the non-apology apology.
replies(1): >>wodeno+k92
◧◩
44. perl4e+WJ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 21:49:44
>>wbroni+MJ
"you entered into a business deal with your customers and unilaterally changed the terms"

This just jumped out at me. Doesn't every agreement/TOS document these days say they can unilaterally change the terms at any time and your only recourse is to stop using the service?

I mean, I guess my point is not that it's ok, but that it emphasizes how "agreements" in our society don't seem to be actual agreements and we go around with the certainty that most will never be enforced, but then people don't always agree.

replies(1): >>ashton+PB3
◧◩◪◨
45. erik_s+dR1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-23 22:48:06
>>908087+Kb1
If Triplebyte doesn't operate in a jurisdiction that makes them subject to GDPR enforcement, the comment is more misleading than helpful.
◧◩◪
46. wodeno+k92[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-24 01:51:29
>>ashton+dF1
Sure, but it also hides a very interesting part of the conversation.

Use your downvotes to hide irrelevant posts, not to display your disagreement. (It won’t really display anything)

◧◩
47. quickt+rl2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-24 04:42:24
>>ponker+M9
Ah the good old physical Rolodex! You can rely on that not to make itself public in 7 days.
replies(1): >>ponker+Xx2
◧◩◪
48. ponker+Xx2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-24 07:54:01
>>quickt+rl2
Your comment made me buy one on eBay. I’m going to use it for a telephone operated jukebox.
◧◩◪
49. johnny+SA2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-24 08:34:46
>>cranky+Ay1
Idk why you were downvoted, this is totally true.
◧◩◪
50. ashton+PB3[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-24 19:35:02
>>perl4e+WJ1
As with most of these cases, the legal text and the social understanding vary quite significantly. From a legal perspective I would not be surprised to find out that Triplebyte is in the clear here (IANAL). But from a social perspective, they are quite obviously in the wrong.
[go to top]