> And who are you

A paying customer of Bartender.

> to slander

It is not slander to say you distrust someone.

> a named person

Ben’s name was already public. Bartender was published under “Surtees Studios”, after all. Ben has also appeared in at least one podcast. Trusting Bartender meant trusting Ben, the developer, the person.

> for selling his own business that he created

That’s not what’s in question. No one is blaming Ben for selling Bartender, the complaint is that it was done in secret. And it would’ve continue to be a secret were it not for a feature in MacUpdater that someone noticed.

> It is an icon utility.

No, it is not. It is an app that requests Screen Recording, Accessibility, and Location permissions to do its job. Thus it is an app which requires a high degree of trust. That the new owners added an analytics framework to, and who knows what else. This case is awfully similar to when a developer sells a browser extension to someone shady because the profit is in the user-base.

> It is not slander to say you distrust someone.

Of course it is slander to say that somebody's reputation is damaged. Especially when it's not a public figure. Just that somebody's name is public, doesn't make them a public figure. And you even continue. Step out of the mob frenzy for a while and try to look at how you are behaving from a higher perspective. Is it right of you to treat a person like that, because he sold his own business? It matters little you once purchased a product from him. Software change owners all the time.

Until there is definite proof of malevolence you should calm down, as should the other hackers. This business has the possibility of becoming a great embarrassment for Hacker News in the future.

It's libelous to write false statements with the intent to harm the reputation of private person; but _observing_ that their reputation appears damaged? That seems like a stretch. Personally, I don't wish either the original developer or the current developer ill; but given that the software requires screen recording permissions in order to operate, the communication issued by both should be thorough, sensitive to the privacy and security issues involved, and open. None of that is the case here.

You do not seem familiar with US slander laws and precedent.

What does the US and their laws have to do with this?

Slander is a legal term with a specific definition in the US court system. For you to accuse someone in the US of slander against someone else in the US is only logical to interpret as "x person could sue y person for slander". Otherwise why use the legal term?

Everybody you talk to online is not in the United States or from the United States. Maybe in the beginning of the 90s. Open your mind.

> Of course it is slander to say that somebody's reputation is damaged.

Of course it is not. Reputations are, by definition, opinions. And opinions are subjective.

> because he sold his own business?

If you’re not going to engage in good faith and will just keep repeating the exact same argument after its inaccuracy has been pointed out to you, I don’t see the point in continuing the conversation.

Engage with the words, not the strawman in your head.

> you should calm down

I am calm. Again, you’re projecting what you want to see, not the reality.

It doesn't matter that it's your opinion. Naming a person as having a damaged reputation is very serious. That can and will have real life consequences, all for some bickering about a utility tool for MacOS. Be proportional. You wouldn't publicly name some other person as having a damaged reputation in real life, so why do you consider it acceptable to do here?

And you shouldn't give apps permission to record your screen. That's your responsibility.

> And you shouldn't give apps permission to record your screen. That's your responsibility.

Clearly, they already know this. They're exercising this responsibility by ceasing to use an app that they no longer trust with their privacy.

And publicly flaming the original author. Just because more people are upvoting you and the others flaming the author of Bartender person does not make them correct. It is a mob after all, the only reasonable person in this discussion is Carlos. People are incredibly toxic in groups. Stop the groupthink!

Why can’t people be reasonable online

I don't think I was unreasonable, as that was my only comment on this thread, but oh well.

Thank you for saying this. The mob is incredibly dangerous, and one of the reasons I have ZERO online presence outside of hackernews. People are dangerous and cultish in groups, especially so online.

People saying the original software author is untrustworthy live in a fucking whimsical fairyland. And probably have never built anything worthy of a sale

...that has screen recording privileges on its users' systems.

It's not shady to sell a business. It's not shady to have screen recording privileges because that's legitimately needed to provide the functionality. It is shady to sell that product to some unknown group without notifying your customers.

I trust(ed) Ben Surtees to run his software on my machine with enhanced privileges. I'm not thrilled that someone else controls it now, and that I'd probably never have known that if I didn't follow tech news closely.

Which part of the statement is slander?

Saying that somebody has a damaged reputation.

That is called an opinion. It is subjective yet demonstrable by all the people voicing their unhappiness. That’s what a reputation is: the beliefs and opinions generally held about someone.

Why do you not acknowledge any of the points made? Selling a business is a big deal and an announcement should be made. Not doing so is at best short sided and ignorant.

Other people are addressing those points better than I would. I think it is out of proportion to denounce and name the individual developer. Why does everything have to turn into a witch hunt? And why do you have to call me ignorant for not thinking like you?

Would any hacker be proud to explain to their grand parents that they got very upset that their icon hiding app was sold?

Nobody called you ignorant and the only personal attack here was made by you.

I misunderstood your post. But I haven't personally attacked anybody.

Everything turns into a witch hunt because people in groups are stupid and unempathetic, and live in a fantasy world.

Good on you for having a grounded take, and realising how feeble minded it is of people to denounce the developer and label them as untrustworthy.

I can bet on my life that the majority of these loud complainers have probably never built or contributed anything of value to the world, let alone sold something and gone through a software acquisition.

I have basically no faith in people on social media, but please don’t feel like your alone in your thoughts I agree with everything you’ve said here

Furthermore most people probably haven’t built macOS apps and are unfamiliar with the permissions model regarding screen recording - it may be that it is actually required for good functioning to have this permission. I haven’t built macOS apps, but I’ve built plenty of browser extensions and know from experience that permissions are much scarier than what the developer is actually using them for in most cases. Like with most things: people are ignorant. People are arrogant. And people don’t think for themselves. This all gets amplified when they group up.

And you speak from your own experience selling businesses I take it?

Libel is in printed form.

Slander is in oral or spoken form.

Saying harmful things about someone is neither libel nor slander if those statements are factual. It's only libel or slander if the statements that are made are false.

IANAL but... It is my understanding that statements can be considered "per se" libel or slander even if they are expressed as opinion as long as they are made negligently or with malice and they cause reputational harm.

It was an icon utility that can record your screen