Maybe? You aren't presenting any evidence for "how wrong he was" and "how he was used by the attacker." You're sure of it? Why? What other explanations are possible here? None?
The HN comment majority also changed from when I made my first comment. At the time I was pushing back against the overwhelming sentiment here and on Twitter that Ubiquiti was going after a journalist just for reporting a breach. The story is way more mixed than that and from the stuff I remember reading at the time Brian wasn't in the right.
I don't want to be overconfident (I don't really know the specifics), but I did want to push back against the overwhelming overconfidence I saw arguing the other direction.
Yeah that's fine but just stating things like that as incontrovertible fact with absolutely no supporting evidence, none, which is what you did, isn't useful. It made me pretty suspicious of an astroturf for example. 9 times in 10 it isn't that but it always looks really bad. It's also tantamount to saying "everyone here is either an idiot or acting in bad faith" and has no reason at all to believe a thing that you are now pointing is is wrong and so clearly wrong that it's the same as stating water is wet. I note now you're providing evidence you're walking it back a bit, which shows the worth of doing so.
It's very common elsewhere. Just keep repeating a thing until it is accepted but it really isn't how things are supposed to be in sensible discussion.
I was replying to someone who said Krebs was "exactly right" - that's what I was pushing back on. My first comment was also more nuanced. The evidence exists for those who care to look and I think what I wrote is inline with it.
If you'd provided any support with that statement at all, or said /why/ you believe that, it's completely fine. Doesn't even have to be correct! We all get stuff wrong. If you believe you provided the support in a different comment, cite it.
"I'm right, go find the evidence if you dare doubt me." Not so useful.
