Just a casual observation, but you don't appear to be listening to me. You are making rationalizations of my statements instead of trying to see my point. For example, I didn't say it was the same as marketing, I said that it's 'fine for marketing', i.e. posting in union when trying to spread interest would be a fine thing for a group account.
What I may be failing to communicate here is how trust is established between entities like companies and entities like individuals. When there is a issue with trust with individuals, like in the OPs post, it's best to establish 'point-to-point' communications with people you know so you can build up the trusted relationship. Doing that as a company doesn't really work well for that.
BTW, comments like "weave has lots of very happy users who find that weave is plenty fast enough for their purposes" are implicit trust statements based on bandwagon bias. What you are actually saying is there exist a group of people who don't feel the way the poster feels and are happy with the product's current state. The implication of your statement is that others should feel this way, but there's really no way to establish that unless we heard from all those people directly. This is yet another example of why consensus sucks when trying to establish the truth for an individual. (Bitcoin has figured this out, however.)
I think about trust a lot for work, so take my comments with a grain of salt. Nobody died here. :)
What I may be failing to communicate here is how trust is established between entities like companies and entities like individuals. When there is a issue with trust with individuals, like in the OPs post, it's best to establish 'point-to-point' communications with people you know so you can build up the trusted relationship. Doing that as a company doesn't really work well for that.
BTW, comments like "weave has lots of very happy users who find that weave is plenty fast enough for their purposes" are implicit trust statements based on bandwagon bias. What you are actually saying is there exist a group of people who don't feel the way the poster feels and are happy with the product's current state. The implication of your statement is that others should feel this way, but there's really no way to establish that unless we heard from all those people directly. This is yet another example of why consensus sucks when trying to establish the truth for an individual. (Bitcoin has figured this out, however.)
I think about trust a lot for work, so take my comments with a grain of salt. Nobody died here. :)