You do get some of what I said it seems like especially because you didn’t acknowledge my first paragraph that explained why they weren’t acting like classmates themselves (which was a major theme/point in the article/blog post lol. It’s in the title).
I don’t feel a need to fully address all of your comments (because the first one was just your opinion similar to my own opinion). We can each look up stats for this.
But your second comment (also an opinion as mine was) did stick out to me due to emotional/psychological/human reasons, I guess:
> Good faith research is fun.
I was speaking about intention. I’m not convinced that “research” (whether it was good or bad faith even) was the goal here.
(FYI, I know the author of the post said this was written and talked about before. All I did was form an opinion based on his summary of the events for this specific HN post. I assumed it would have all of the salient information. But if there’s something missing, please point it out.)
> especially because you didn’t acknowledge my first paragraph that explained why they weren’t acting like classmates themselves (which was a major theme/point in the article/blog post lol. It’s in the title).
Because it seemed very irrelavent to if they were good faith researchers. I dont know if i agree - critiquing classmates designs is a quintessential classmate activity - but regardless i don't understand how this connects to the rest of your point. Say they weren't acting as classmates. How does that change anything about if they were acting as good faith security researchers, which is the point under contention.
> All I did was form an opinion based on his summary of the events for this specific HN post
Just because its an opinion doesn't make you not responsible for it.
I don't know what was in these people's hearts and minds. They could be secretly evil for all i know. However i think its morally wrong to call someone immoral without positive evidence they were acting wrongly or had bad intentions. Yet you seem comfortable calling them immoral basically on the sole basis that the work took place on a friday and a misreading of a document that they referenced but not even in the part of the document they were referencing? You allege they have an ulterior motive but you don't even put forth what that motive might be. Like respectfully, i think that's kind of a shitty thing to do. These are real people and deserve to be judged based on the facts and what can be drawn from the facts.
> Because it seemed very irrelavent to if they were good faith researchers.
It’s not irrelevant if the author mentioned “classmates” several times to justify his viewpoint/emotions about the situation.
However, I was making 2 points in my original comment. The first was a critique about the author’s viewpoint that classmates did this to him. The second was about the intention of the author related to “good faith research”. Here’s why I did this. If you re-read the beginning of the author’s conclusion, he said this:
> Now let’s take a quick step back. (1) Getting a legal threat for our good-faith security research was incredibly stressful. (2) And the fact that it came from our classmates added insult to injury.
I added the numbers in () myself but you see there are 2 distinct ideas that the author is concluding here. Get it?
> Yet you seem comfortable calling them immoral
I never called anyone immoral or even implied it. If I thought so, then I would have just said it clearly.
I literally said that I didn’t know whether “research” was the main intention. I even said something to the affect of “whether it’s good or bad faith”.
I never placed any negative judgment on anyone. I even said “and there’s nothing wrong with having fun on a Friday night”. You seem to be misreading between the lines.
It’s interesting that you’re fixated on this but you haven’t commented on any of the other comments on this post that did call Fizz’s employees immoral. Someone even literally wrote a curse word (that starts with the letter “S”) to describe them.
If you remember, the original comment that I replied to said “Devil’s advocate”. That meant that this subthread was supposed to explore a viewpoint that others weren’t commenting as much.
If you had an issue with the original person who wrote the “Devil’s advocate” comment then you should reply to them. I only said that I “sort of” get his comment. I didn’t say I agree with everything he wrote.
> I never called anyone immoral or even implied it. If I thought so, then I would have just said it clearly.
Lets quote:
"To my ears/eyes, those sentences above seem like a carefully crafted but still flimsy excuse. It’s like a lie that you tell yourself over and over so much that you end up believing it"
You called them liars. Most people consider lying to be immoral. You implied they had ulterior motives. The implication is that these motives were evil because people don't lie about good motivations.
> However, I was making 2 points in my original comment.
Yes i know, but they are separate points that don't build on each other. I disagree with both but i only find one of the points objectionable and was only contending one of them. What, do you think that people can only fully disagree or agree with you? That people have to disagree or agree with both points.
> It’s interesting that you’re fixated on this but you haven’t commented on any of the other comments on this post that did call Fizz’s employees immoral.
I have not commented on literally every thread on the internet. You caught me. However just because someone called them immoral doesn't mean i find their comment objectionable.
That said, are you really trying to argue that two wrongs make a right? If you want me to conceed that there exists other bad people on the internet, i'll happily agree with that.
> If you remember, the original comment that I replied to said “Devil’s advocate”. That meant that this subthread was supposed to explore a viewpoint that others weren’t commenting as much.
No, it means the original commenter doesn't neccesarily agree with the view being espoused. Given you said you agree with said view, you are obviously not claiming to be playing devils advocate. In any case, devil's advocate isn't a blank cheque to behave any way you want.
> It’s interesting that you’re fixated on this but you haven’t commented on any of the other comments on this post that did call Fizz’s employees immoral.
But i don't have an issue with their comment. While i might not 100% agree with his metaphor, i think his comment was reasonable. He did not call them liars with no evidence. He did not misleadingly imply the authors agreed that one should only do security research covered by safe harbour provisions when they didn't. Etc.
I may disagree with them being immoral but i don't object to calling them such if backed up with reasonable argument. I object to calling them liars (or accusing them of any other moral sin) without evidence. That's something you did that most other people haven't, which is why i am fixated on your comment not theirs.
I don’t feel a need to fully address all of your comments (because the first one was just your opinion similar to my own opinion). We can each look up stats for this.
But your second comment (also an opinion as mine was) did stick out to me due to emotional/psychological/human reasons, I guess:
> Good faith research is fun.
I was speaking about intention. I’m not convinced that “research” (whether it was good or bad faith even) was the goal here.
(FYI, I know the author of the post said this was written and talked about before. All I did was form an opinion based on his summary of the events for this specific HN post. I assumed it would have all of the salient information. But if there’s something missing, please point it out.)
It’s a cool story though.