> Following a comprehensive review, we determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated.
That doesn’t sound like “we’re cancelling this because our customers let us know loud and clear that they were ethically against this”. If the only thing keeping them from doing this is time and money, what guarantee do we have that they won’t do it again if time and money allow?
You seem to be taking the company's words at face value and assuming good faith. I would caution against doing that.
Look, Amazon has our best interest at heart, alright? Surely they're not working on this still in the background.
Amazing how often people do that. Corporations have very little incentive to be truthful and often have good reason to be dishonest. I notice it particularly wrt video games, gamers are always taking studio’s messaging as gospel and not corporate comms.
And with Elon Musk! If he says we're going to Mars, then we're going to Mars. If he says full self driving next year, we're getting full self driving next year. He said that every year for 10 years? So what?
That also sounds like the client came with list of additional requirements.
The ethical part you mentioned is still true.
They're saying that because saying what they actually mean would paint flock in a negative light, which they likely want to avoid for various reasons.
So they'd rather lie in their press release.
Yes.
That's...not unusual.
I would strongly to advise you to assume companies are extremely willing to lie in press releases.
So they’re working around it and getting paid in another way (via a middleman) while still sending it to the stormtroopers
Right, but we have to call it out every time.
What? This is basic human social skills.
It’s like when you don’t like someone’s friends but you’re not actually going to say that out loud. Instead you say “I'm just too tired to go out” — it’s a “diplomatic out.” Yes it’s a lie at face value but you leave people with their dignity while simultaneously signal your intent. Your friend, who presumably has social skills, picks up the subtext and you successfully communicate two layers of meaning with one sentence.
Press releases are the same thing.
I say: "I don't like your friend because they are a neo-Nazi", and then I don't go out with them.
No, what you call "basic human social skills" is literally opposite of it. Having good social skills also involves saying "this person/institution is lying". Or even "this person/institution is harming people".
Having social skills means also being able to distinguish between innocent nicer phrase, outright enabling and being coconspirator.
Huh so weird, companies never do that.
> companies never do that
You must be a company.
Press releases are lies by default.
Press releases are partly to create a paper trail and partly for the stock market.
Saying bad stuff about their former business partner could get them sued.
1. Anyone can sue anyone
2. saying false things (not bad things per se) could be expensive
Yes? Not like we can prove one way or the other.
You really think someone would do that? Just write a press release and tell lies?
Yes?
ryandrake is making reference to arrhur internet lies meme
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iHrZRJR4igQ
I couldn't resist. It was a perfect setup.
We would never have any guarantee of that no matter what they said.