7 ms·

I'd honestly much rather be brutally honest than go down the artificial PR route.

exogen 14y ago
Brutal honesty tends to work when you are performing a critique, not when you're addressing a complaint from someone who unwillingly made your business money.
j_baker 14y ago
I'd honestly rather you not be a dick than use the "brutal honesty" cop-out[1]. I mean, yeah, sometimes the truth hurts. But I'm not convinced this is such a case. And the fact that you see nothing wrong would seem to reinforce that lack of conviction. [1] Not that brutal honesty is always a cop-out, mind you.
ellyagg 14y ago
False dilemma. The third and correct option is "don't be a dick".
mikeash 14y ago
Brutally honest is OK. Brutally stupid, which is what your tweets look like to me, is not OK.
javajosh 14y ago
I upvoted you (really) because I totally agree with you: CEOs like you should be completely, brutally honest. Especially when this reveals you to be oafish and unprincipled. This policy is good for customers (so they can avoid your products) good for investors (so they can avoid investing in your company) and good for prospective employees (so they can not).
- petercooper 14y ago
  I think that could make a fascinating blog post and then discussion on HN. If you want to ride on the back of this one (you know how HN has flavors of the week), consider it! :-)
- aurelianito 14y ago
  I up-voted the grand-parent because it is great to have the opinion of the other party involved, even thou I don't agree with it.
ktizo 14y ago
Apologising for plagiarism isn't artificial PR if you mean it. All I get from this comment is that you basically don't give a shit, which also means you really should not be an editor as that role is entirely about accepting responsibility for what gets published. Have you been taking notes from the tabloids by any chance? If you have you had better have the bank balance to back the attitude because that is the only way they get away with this kind of shit while still remaining in business.
chris_wot 14y ago
It appears we are following your advise. Please allow me to add my voice to the general baying - don't be a dick. Don't plagiarise the work of others.
lloyddobbler 14y ago
Zee, Judith Griggs with Cooks Source was 'brutally honest' as well. You would probably do well to give her story a read: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/web-decries-infringement/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/web-decries-infring... It obviously has some keen similarities to your situation (particularly in the "editor's response" department). While I'm a fan of fair use (it's what makes the world wide web go round), I'm also a fan of attribution...and more importantly, of handling PR like someone who's the public face of a company. I think the responses here on HN show that most of us think similarly.

Brutal honesty tends to work when you are performing a critique, not when you're addressing a complaint from someone who unwillingly made your business money.

j_baker 14y ago

I'd honestly rather you not be a dick than use the "brutal honesty" cop-out[1]. I mean, yeah, sometimes the truth hurts. But I'm not convinced this is such a case. And the fact that you see nothing wrong would seem to reinforce that lack of conviction. [1] Not that brutal honesty is always a cop-out, mind you.

ellyagg 14y ago

False dilemma. The third and correct option is "don't be a dick".

mikeash 14y ago

Brutally honest is OK. Brutally stupid, which is what your tweets look like to me, is not OK.

javajosh 14y ago

I upvoted you (really) because I totally agree with you: CEOs like you should be completely, brutally honest. Especially when this reveals you to be oafish and unprincipled. This policy is good for customers (so they can avoid your products) good for investors (so they can avoid investing in your company) and good for prospective employees (so they can not).

petercooper 14y ago
I think that could make a fascinating blog post and then discussion on HN. If you want to ride on the back of this one (you know how HN has flavors of the week), consider it! :-)
aurelianito 14y ago
I up-voted the grand-parent because it is great to have the opinion of the other party involved, even thou I don't agree with it.

ktizo 14y ago

Apologising for plagiarism isn't artificial PR if you mean it. All I get from this comment is that you basically don't give a shit, which also means you really should not be an editor as that role is entirely about accepting responsibility for what gets published. Have you been taking notes from the tabloids by any chance? If you have you had better have the bank balance to back the attitude because that is the only way they get away with this kind of shit while still remaining in business.

chris_wot 14y ago

It appears we are following your advise. Please allow me to add my voice to the general baying - don't be a dick. Don't plagiarise the work of others.

lloyddobbler 14y ago

Zee, Judith Griggs with Cooks Source was 'brutally honest' as well. You would probably do well to give her story a read: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/web-decries-infringement/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/web-decries-infring... It obviously has some keen similarities to your situation (particularly in the "editor's response" department). While I'm a fan of fair use (it's what makes the world wide web go round), I'm also a fan of attribution...and more importantly, of handling PR like someone who's the public face of a company. I think the responses here on HN show that most of us think similarly.