It's not "victim blaming" to point out that we lack sufficient information to really know who the victim even is, or if there's one at all. Believing complainants uncritically isn't some sort of virtue you can reasonably expect people to adhere to.
(My bet is that Anthropic's automated systems erred, but the author's flamboyant manner of writing (particularly the way he keeps making a big deal out of an error message calling him an organization, turning it into a recurring bit where he calls himself that) did raise my eyebrow. It reminded me of the faux outrage some people sometimes use to distract people from something else.)
> Believing complainants uncritically isn't some sort of virtue you can reasonably expect people to adhere to.
It is when the other side refuses to tell their side of the story. Compare it to a courtroom trial. If you sue someone, and they don't show up and tell their side of the story, the judge is going to accept your side pretty much as you tell it.
I read it, and it's not enough to make a judgement either way. For all we know none of this had anything to do with his ban and he was banned for something he did the day before. There's no way for third parties to be sure of anything in this kind of situation, where one party shares only the information they wish and the other side stays silent as a matter of default corporate policy.
I am not saying that the author was in the wrong and deserved to be banned. I'm saying that neither I nor you can know for sure.
It's not "victim blaming" to point out that we lack sufficient information to really know who the victim even is, or if there's one at all. Believing complainants uncritically isn't some sort of virtue you can reasonably expect people to adhere to.
(My bet is that Anthropic's automated systems erred, but the author's flamboyant manner of writing (particularly the way he keeps making a big deal out of an error message calling him an organization, turning it into a recurring bit where he calls himself that) did raise my eyebrow. It reminded me of the faux outrage some people sometimes use to distract people from something else.)
> Believing complainants uncritically isn't some sort of virtue you can reasonably expect people to adhere to.
It is when the other side refuses to tell their side of the story. Compare it to a courtroom trial. If you sue someone, and they don't show up and tell their side of the story, the judge is going to accept your side pretty much as you tell it.
Skip to the end of the article.
He says himself that this is a guess and provides the "missing" information if you are actually interested in it.
I read it, and it's not enough to make a judgement either way. For all we know none of this had anything to do with his ban and he was banned for something he did the day before. There's no way for third parties to be sure of anything in this kind of situation, where one party shares only the information they wish and the other side stays silent as a matter of default corporate policy.
I am not saying that the author was in the wrong and deserved to be banned. I'm saying that neither I nor you can know for sure.
4 replies →