Gregory's Server@yahe @lori@hackers.town "He violated an explicit boundary that he was given" seems like a fairly obvious reason to be upset, no?
|
10 comments
 @yahe Right. But that's not what was being demanded here, so I don't know why you're bringing that into the picture. The recipient said "stop". The Kagi dude didn't stop. That is really the only part of the story here that matters, and in that context I'm not sure where the confusion around an upset response comes from, because that seems pretty clearly problematic. @balrogboogie Depending on the local jurisdictiction, one could be required to post corrections through the same channel that the potential misrepresentations and/or false statements were made with the intention to reach the same audience as the original statements. @balrogboogie But the CEO informed the original poster about potential misrepresentations and false statements. Legal novices are not necessarily required to use legal wording to express their claims against another party. @balrogboogie You can‘t be forced to discuss a matter privately unless there is a corresponding contract in place, but oftentimes the private conversation is easier/cheaper to resolve than getting dragged to court. Depending on the jurisdiction, providing the chance to resolve the matter privately is even required before a case is opened (failed out-of-court settlement). @yahe I think you are reaching an incredible amount to try and give this obvious narcissist the benefit of the doubt, and that makes me question your motives @balrogboogie I already finished with this topic hours ago and you were the one who asked additional questions. Just stop asking if you don‘t like the answers. Goodbye. |
@joepie91 In general, yes. Full stop.
Depending on where you are located, you may still be legally required to publish counter statements and/or corrections if you operate something that resembles a journalistic platform. This depends on the local jurisdiction.