This is pretty effective marketing... generate some fake controversy over some small slight and have it go viral on HN.

(I work in marketing at scale)

Thank you.

(I don't really)

Plot twist: Original comment was also the CEO.

That escalated quickly.

Still odd Lyft doesn't credit this when posting about it.

Gotta love HN.

Good people come to comment on a minute notice!

Business should not be lost. Credit is secondary.

Under the bus they go!

Someone will get fired today

Hopefully not. Cardigan obviously is has the company's interest in mind, even if perhaps the execution is a little flawed. Cardigan has just learnt a lot about PR and also gave a lot of free airtime to Scale.

Also hopefully Scale will use this opportunity to educate team members about situations like this.

> I doubt leaving out Scale completely from the announcement is in the spirit of the agreement

CEO Narrator: it was.

MULTI-KILL

BBBBUYOUT

PPPPAAAAYDAY

ACQUI-FFFFIRED

That crosses into personal attack, which is not allowed on HN, even if you are fighting the forces of capital.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That’s a strange take on this. Not all staff are authorized to speak on the company’s behalf. That’s true almost anywhere I’ve worked. Your efforts cannot always be recognized externally. NDAs and various other types of contracts commonly outline that.

I would be surprised if many people here really just assumed that a pseudonymous user chatting with us in the HN comments was speaking on behalf of the company in an official capacity. I mean, obviously there are legal niceties to be observed and he should have appended the usual disclaimers, blah blah blah, but we do have common sense here right?

No, people don't have common sense. People should not post publicly on behalf of their employer without running it by a manager. This is lesson one at every major corporate introduction and I now understand why, because people don't have common sense.

I didn't say anything about whether he should or should not have spoken out about the deal. And I specifically said that common sense doesn't cut the mustard legally. But I am asserting that the damage from people supposedly assuming that he was speaking officially is speculative and likely zero.

This isn’t really about employee recognition. The whole comment was about attribution for the company and marketing the partnership with Scale. Which is pretty standard in some business arrangements but which wasn’t the case here, which the employee wasn’t aware of and turned out to not that big of a deal for scale. Plenty of companies work in the background supporting other. Businesses and don’t always need attribution.

OP is trying to pigeonhole this into some sort of anti capitalist diatribe by trying to make it about individual employees wanting recognition and some big evil company is treating them like invisible cogs in the machine... which doesn’t make much sense since he asked for the company itself to be attributed, not individuals. It’s up to the company to reward and recognize employee contributions, not in some 3rd party partners announcements.

Plus he was always free to comment how he helped work on it or letting people know Scale had a role in helping make it (which are both common on HN). Only if the parent company tried to suppress that would this argument make any sense. But I don’t know why I’m bothering to counter such a position.

that's a strange response. i'm already clearly critiquing the dominant paradigm, capitalism. why would you just itemise a bunch of conventions from this paradigm, which i likely disagree with?

do you need hn to be an agreeable echo chamber for you?

capitalism depends on people not thinking thoroughly about the "deal" they are being drawn into. i'm here to harm this situation.

Ouchy