Hacker News Reader

Comment by itchyjunk | Hacker News Reader

Mind linking to it? Otherwise this is just more hearsay on an already misleading click-bait title.

This[0] is from the organisation that got the files unsealed, and includes the "whale" reference at the beginning of the chat mentioned. Not sure it proves that 5-year-old were referred to in this way, but it does sound very casual in it's usage.

[0] - https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-...

Relevant part:

> Gillian: Would you refund this whale ticket? User is disputing ALL charges…

> Michael: What’s the users total lifetime spend?

> Gillian: It’s $6,545 – but card was just added on Sept. 2. They are disputing all of it I believe. That user looks underage as well. Well, maybe not under 13.

> Michael: Is the user writing in a parent, or is this user a 13ish year old

> Gillian: It’s a 13ish yr old. says its 15. looks a bit younger. she* not its. Lol.

> Michael: … I wouldn’t refund

> Gillian: Oh that’s fine. cool. agreed. just double checking

Clickbait headline makes it sound like they were trying to recruit whales.

Oh great. What a moral. 'oh that's fine. cool. agreed. just double checking'. Thanks god he's not a judge. These guys side Facebook versus a 13 year old kid, nice morality.

Is "these guys" supposed to be me? I'm not 'siding' Facebook. I think they should have forgiven the debt.

That you think a clearly misleading headline is a matter of 'sides' is worrying.

These guys => 2 guys in your transcribed conversation. I'm talking about the conversation.

What's worrying is a person deciding to not refund a 13-15 year old kid that I'm pretty sure doesn't know how many money has spent on games.

Fair enough. They’re Facebook employees - them "siding with" their own company doesn't quite seem like the right way to describe this - but I'm glad you're not talking about me and thanks for the clarification.

Thank you for doing your part to protect us from clickbait while Facebook ... what was it they were doing again?

The facts should stand on their own. If one feels it necessary to take the facts and "dress them up", it most certainly devalues the argument when it comes out that someone's been telling half-truths.

So, yeah, it kinda matters that we not let such sloppiness slide.

Agreed. Hyperbole is something we all fall victim to sometimes, but it is something we should fight against. Be exact as possible, even if huuuge sounds better.

In this case it is beyond hyperbole. I would say the title is just inaccurate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com