News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by delinka on Friday July 22, 2016 @03:18PM (#12146026)
Well, they also contend that the "lease" was violated. So there's that. If you continually poke about in doors around the apartment building that the landlord says you're not allowed to, there'a also a good chance you'll be asked to leave the premises.
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by tptacek on Friday July 22, 2016 @03:23PM (#12146071)
What "lease"? WeWork is month-to-month.
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by delinka on Friday July 22, 2016 @03:26PM (#12146111)
It's in quotes continuing the analogy. If they violated the TOS, that's akin to violating the lease on your apartment.
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by peterbonney on Friday July 22, 2016 @03:25PM (#12146093)
The claim is that the tenant violated the WeWork terms of service (very much akin to a lease, albeit a short-term one) by scraping member data through the WeWork API.
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by tptacek on Friday July 22, 2016 @03:34PM (#12146174)
Yes, I understand that. I'm going further and saying that anyone working here should expect to lose their spot for any reason or no reason on a monthly --- meaning, effectively, instantaneous --- basis.

I have a lot of negative things to say about WeWork as a business, and some netting-out-positive things to say about the particular West Loop WeWork space I'm working out of right now. But most of all: I'm here with my eyes open. There's also the concern of "is WeWork even going to exist in 6 months"?

Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by michaelmrose on Friday July 22, 2016 @05:09PM (#12146790)
Not even monthly they were given 30 minutes to vacate.
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by peterbonney on Friday July 22, 2016 @04:12PM (#12146427)
Got it - apologies for misunderstanding you. I thought you were suggesting the opposite (I.e. that there is nothing to violate because of the lack of a long-term lease). :)