Makes you confident about Airmule?
There isn’t much need for anything beyond 3 characters:
“Yes” or “No”
If you asked FedEx that question, there isn’t a legal department response needed. It’s a simple “Yes.”
Also, that question – the public has a right to a clear answer.
“Do your cars have seatbelts?”
“Does your food contain salt?”
These are examples of questions that don’t have gray areas worthy of “legalese.”
If legalese is required that means the expected answer isn’t the same as the actual answer.
Definitely not a clear question. What if it only ha seatbelts in front but not back? What if they comply with EU regulations but not California regulations, or vice versa?
> “Does your food contain salt?”
Even less clear. Do you know about California prop 65? It is a fail of epic proportions, because "contain" may mean "has enough to cause an effect on an average human", "has enough to cause an effect on a human with extremely rare condition that makes him sensitive to salt orders of magnitude higher than a regular human" or "has enough to be detectable by the most sensitive detector created by modern science". That's even without getting into the weeds about how common table salt is not just sodium chloride, and sodium chloride may be present without adding table salt (many organisms have it so if you eat them you eat salt). Not try to pack it into 140 characters in a way that a hostile journalist can't make a scoop out of it. Good luck.
> If legalese is required that means the expected answer isn’t the same as the actual answer.
Oh if it only were so.
I personally have no idea. And after reading the article I still don't. Does the writer know? I couldn't see anything passed the sarcasm that would convince me either way.
I would expect more substance in an article on the front page of Hacker news.
If the answer "Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?" were "no", the extension is: "No, totally no, 0%, zero, nada, zip!" [fake quote]
Their answers to "Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?" is something like: "They will get a seat in the plane and can use the bathroom." [Also, fake quote.] They are not replaying the question, only stating something unrelated.
These guys had my email address and could have sent a detailed response. Instead, they sent a short (but clear) one. If they actually wanted a phone interview, they could have asked for one and provided a number to call. And it's possible to send more than one tweet if they wanted to respond that way.
They did link to a FAQ which isn't clear, and their Terms of Service is posted on the page as others have noted. This is what raised my eyebrows to begin with and why I started asking questions.
A friend who is a tech reporter said "When they're responding like this, you know you got 'em." Given that Rory has had all morning to dispute any of the facts in my blog post, and has not done so despite being very active on Twitter, it seems clear that my reporter friend is right.
If I was a potential user of the service and I received these responses I doubt I would feel comfortable in accepting the offer.