Well, e.g. I am at a nonprofit using Slack and would rather not get rugpulled in the future. So I'm particularly interested in any evidence that Slack can give that this was an isolated, unintentional circumstance and won't happen again.

Absolutely, and I see nothing wrong with that at all. My issue is the tar-and-feather thing.

> My issue is the tar-and-feather thing.

From what I can tell the "tar-and-feather thing" is outrage directed at Slack and its CXOs, rather than the poor guy who happens to be reposting a message from the CPO.

Please don't let your moderator's concern for injury to individual people blind you to the fact that the outrage triggered by outrageous conduct is directed at the outrageous company and its officers, rather than at individual folks who aren't in a position with any real power.

Sorry but I can't agree with this framing. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45293818.

I don't see how my comment above could be interpreted as any sort of personal attack or tar-and-feather behavior towards the person I replied to. This is a discussion about a bad business practice at a major company, and that is what these concerns are voiced against, not any one individual person who is acting as a spokesperson.

I interpreted it that way based on lots of past experience with the dynamic I wrote about upthread. I believe you that you didn't intend it to come across as hostile! The problem is that intent doesn't communicate itself, especially in short critical comments. The way I usually put it is "the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate" (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)

I apologize for using your comment as a place to hang a whole generic thing about mobs and whatnot—I certainly didn't mean it about you personally (or even your post) - it's a shared group phenomenon for sure, and I could have made that clearer.

As an internet commenter, I expect vendors to be accountable to us precisely because we provide them free marketing in exchange for, well, attention of us, and our fellow commenters and readers.

In my days of heading R&D for a regional social networking site, we discovered that first ~100k of our users were both the most valuable ones, due to the extent of their interaction with the site, and due to the fact that their risk tolerance for our /new/ product meant they would also tolerate future products. As such, that "first wave" of community around a product - is - the wave the creates the market for the product.

In case of Slack - they were taking that goodwill for granted. And the community's outrage called that bluff. It highlighted to other readers (like myself, I don't use Slack anymore so never paid attention to the ownership change) that it's now part of Salesforce (and that's a negative signal for me, might be positive for others); that it got pretty dubious business practices (as others in similar situation to OP have spoken up); and that none of the CXOs' committed to meaningful (from my and community's perspective) responses - post mortems; blast radius; accountability; data export.. which means either they don't have the power to make such commitments (wouldn't be the case pre-acquisition), or don't want to make them. Another negative signal.