I'm not sure what you were expecting people to take away from your message, with the way that it is worded. It may not have been the intent, but the particular way you expressed your point heavily implies it.
> I'm not sure what you were expecting people to take away from your message, with the way that it is worded.
My guess would be that they were saying that Cloudflare's HN comment on the incident was to complain about google not cleaning up after the incident.
> the particular way you expressed your point heavily implies it.
You can't turn around the burden of proof this easily. Saying "the particular way you expressed it" doesn't give you license to make things up about a comment that is an inch above yours.
>the CEO’s strategy was to turn up here and criticise Google for not deindexing quickly enough
This wording implies that the CEO deflecting on HN was their strategy for responding to this problem, not that the CEO deflected on HN in addition to admitting fault elsewhere. Typically 'strategy' is used to refer everything that they planned to do, not a single action.
What you wrote is that "the CEO’s strategy was to turn up here and criticise Google for not deindexing quickly enough".
The CEO replied to someone asking about the services they were working with and complained about Google taking longer than the others. Maybe we're reading his comment in a different way, but to me there's a big gap between what he did and having a "strategy" to blame Google.
Cloudflare's CTO (jgrahamc) was on that thread too and didn't spend his time criticising Google. He wasn't hiding or saying "look over there instead!".
So I don't see any strategy from the CEO, CTO or the company to criticise Google or to ignore the fact that CF had f'ed up. Pointing out that Google was slow to remove cached pages is, in my view, a valid criticism.
Now, if you said that they had a strategy to minimise the problem, then I'd agree with you.
For someone getting very aggressive for words "being put in your mouth", you're not really paraphrasing that Cloudflare CEO very fairly.
He was specificity responding to someone complaining it's still in Google's cache, by stating that "The caches other than Google were quick to clear [..] I agree it's troubling that Google is taking so long.".
By leaving out this context, and phrasing it a "strategy", is not a fair paraphrasing. These bits matter. Two things can be true at the same time: 1) Cloudflare messed up, and 2) Google is very slow to deal with this, and also messed up. Indexing all of the web comes with some responsibilities.
Please apply the same standards to yourself that you impose on others with such aggression and hostility.
I'm not sure what you were expecting people to take away from your message, with the way that it is worded. It may not have been the intent, but the particular way you expressed your point heavily implies it.
> I'm not sure what you were expecting people to take away from your message, with the way that it is worded.
My guess would be that they were saying that Cloudflare's HN comment on the incident was to complain about google not cleaning up after the incident.
> the particular way you expressed your point heavily implies it.
You can't turn around the burden of proof this easily. Saying "the particular way you expressed it" doesn't give you license to make things up about a comment that is an inch above yours.
Top level comment says
>the CEO’s strategy was to turn up here and criticise Google for not deindexing quickly enough
This wording implies that the CEO deflecting on HN was their strategy for responding to this problem, not that the CEO deflected on HN in addition to admitting fault elsewhere. Typically 'strategy' is used to refer everything that they planned to do, not a single action.
I wrote what I wrote. He came here and in his only comment, criticised Google for not being quick enough.
That is all I wrote and all I meant.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718752#13721644
I don't much care if words are being put in my mouth but I do point it out.
But then again as Maya Angelou said:
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
What you wrote is that "the CEO’s strategy was to turn up here and criticise Google for not deindexing quickly enough".
The CEO replied to someone asking about the services they were working with and complained about Google taking longer than the others. Maybe we're reading his comment in a different way, but to me there's a big gap between what he did and having a "strategy" to blame Google.
Cloudflare's CTO (jgrahamc) was on that thread too and didn't spend his time criticising Google. He wasn't hiding or saying "look over there instead!".
So I don't see any strategy from the CEO, CTO or the company to criticise Google or to ignore the fact that CF had f'ed up. Pointing out that Google was slow to remove cached pages is, in my view, a valid criticism.
Now, if you said that they had a strategy to minimise the problem, then I'd agree with you.
2 replies →
For someone getting very aggressive for words "being put in your mouth", you're not really paraphrasing that Cloudflare CEO very fairly.
He was specificity responding to someone complaining it's still in Google's cache, by stating that "The caches other than Google were quick to clear [..] I agree it's troubling that Google is taking so long.".
By leaving out this context, and phrasing it a "strategy", is not a fair paraphrasing. These bits matter. Two things can be true at the same time: 1) Cloudflare messed up, and 2) Google is very slow to deal with this, and also messed up. Indexing all of the web comes with some responsibilities.
Please apply the same standards to yourself that you impose on others with such aggression and hostility.
1 reply →
Um, you literally wrote:
Isn't that "them blaming Google for their screw up"?
No, it is deflection. Very common tactic used to make it appear that someone else is more responsible than oneself.
Cool, good point. :)
Do you not literally understand there is a difference between criticise and blame?
Jeez, this place.