Comment by blue039 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by blue039 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Even though this article takes a "bad people helping bad people" side to the story it's important to consider the reality of the situation. Even if you're the most honest person in the world it'll take one twitter post from one persistent rock-in-shoe tier person to destroy you and your career. In today's "everything is political" economy one minor misstep 10 years ago can fundamentally put you on the street and eating from soup kitchens. Worse, the accusation need not be truthful. It simply needs to be believable given your immutable characteristics and especially if those characteristics match what people allege is the "majority".

Reputation management should be something all of us should consider. Adopting these "dark triad" tactics is not only sufficient but absolutely necessary for survival when every single person you interact with may use you as a stepping stone to their own 15 minutes of fame. Honesty is simply a weakness. Use whatever means, underhanded or not, to shape consensus of you.

No, this is bad people helping bad people. You are just being apologetic to terrible behavior. Thus enabling terrible behavior. Especially since it's the same people that usually are behind "taking down" individuals with false claims. Most of us are not psychopaths, and we shouldn't normalize malignant psychopathy

The article points to a handful of bad people who used this service. They do not cover the other thousands of other likely substantially less egregious cases. Yes, the way they misrepresent themselves to take down stuff is wrong and probably illegal but fundamentally I don't think someone should be effectively barred from employment forever for a mistake they made several years ago which is what happens when arrest press releases and republications of them are allowed to indefinitely be the first thing that comes up when you search someone's name. Not to mention the fact that some of the people mentioned in the article have never actually been convicted of anything but have had their name dragged through the mud anyways.

Yes, because royalty got to its position through being a self described "empathetic person".

No, power is awarded to those bold enough to do what needs to be done. You'd be wise to read _The Prince_, and instead of being revolted by it, take it as a lesson in how people such as US presidents, CEOs, dictators, etc all come to power.

I'm getting downvoted because people like you haven't studied history. Typical of the pseudo-intellectual I doubt you've read any books on the historical acquisition of power. If you did, you'd notice the common thread across all cultures, kingdoms, and royalty. There's a distinct difference between deliberate machiavellianism, and uncontrolled machiavellianism. The former is business, the latter is "psychopathy". I put it in quotes because you also do not have any idea what psychopathy actually is. I'm sure you go around the office calling people "nazis" and "fascists" too.

My guy, you are not going to become royalty no matter how much you lie to everyone in your life. There are many jerks who live in the gutters and prisons too, far more than ones who live like kings.

Did you pay for access to tates discord? This is the same type of demented antisocial rhetoric he uses.

This reads exactly like a posting from the reputation management company trying to salvage its reputation.

Indeed. The real solution is:

- Delete Twitter

- Delete Facebook

- Try not to be a dick in general

And regular people will be fine.

As to the level of surprise we should feel for bad people paying for reputation management, and the reputation management company using shady tactics, the answer is none.

Surprisingly, deleting your social media does not stop other people making posts about you which may be widely read.

Regular people yes,but anything other than a harsh response to these firms means that we can't have representative who are "regular".this is how democracy dies.

What happens if you are unjustly smeared?

I've been unjustly smeared a few times over the decades. What I found works for me is to ignore it. If you pay attention to it, you give it more credence. Protesting too much tends to make people think there must be some truth to the smear.

When asked about it, you tell the truth plainly and calmly.

If you have a history of conducting yourself with integrity, that's enough. None of the smears will seriously hurt you because the people who matter know better.

Traditionally, ignore it. Streisand Effect.

These days, ChatGPT-generated progressively-unhinged nonsense could easily drown out legitimate claims, especially if you post it to your own Wikipedia page.

The nuclear bomb option is to change your name to Michael Bolton or some other common or famous name.

> Honesty is simply a weakness.

OMJ. You said the quiet part out loud.

This attitude is wrong. Very, very wrong.

In fact, people and corporations that can maintain personal and corporate Integrity, in today's world, are generally badass MFs, and it's not likely to end well for those that mistake Integrity for weakness.

Go ahead, underestimate them. That should be fun.

> In fact, people and corporations that can maintain personal and corporate Integrity, in today's world, are generally badass MFs, and it's not likely to end well for those that mistake Integrity for weakness.

Cool opinion. None of it is true. You may think they are "generally badass MFers" but there are plenty of people, myself included, who will see "corporate integrity" as a weakness. In fact, if you interviewed the world's most powerful people I'd bet all the money I had none of them would tell you to be a "nice person" with "integrity". Warren Buffett, for example, uses this image (and you should abuse such an image), but historically is a cutthroat.

If you want integrity join a church. The people in power who have convinced you that they have integrity and that's how they got there are exploiting your naive sense of moral purpose in life. Wake up.

> If you want integrity join a church.

I am sorry that you have had the experiences that you have had.

On the other hand, I have had some obviously orthogonal ones.

My statement was a blanket statement that obviously does not apply everywhere, and I apologize.

However, I’d still suggest caution, if you act upon the assumption of weakness, indicated by Integrity or Kindness.

I won’t go into my personal story here, but I have very good reason, for my attitude. I’ve personally seen some of the very worst of humanity, but also have seen some of the very best.

You might be surprised at the places we can find the light.

> if you interviewed the world's most powerful people I'd bet all the money I had none of them would tell you to be a "nice person" with "integrity".

This is pretty much the only thing you've said here that I agree with. But I don't see how that means anyone should emulate them, or even that emulating them is likely to get you any power.

This troll obviously has a very juvenile understanding of power dynamics. While there are plenty of powerful people who have these mindsets, I’ve yet to find one that rants about it so brazenly. Which is smart. Smart psychopaths understand that they’re rejected by society when they’re discovered so some form parasitic relationships to protect whole others learn how to be a decent human being.

I could not disagree more.

> Honesty is simply a weakness.

This is not only untrue, but interacting with anyone who really believes it is incredibly dangerous.

If this is the prevailing attitude amongst "reputation management" firms, then I feel pretty safe in assuming anyone engaging these firms or similar tactics are doing so because they're bad actors.

> This is not only untrue, but interacting with anyone who really believes it is incredibly dangerous.

This opinion literally only exists in a pseudo-intellectual echo chamber such as this one.

Not even close, no. It certainly exists in those echo chambers, but it's also very common in the general population.

Yeah, for real.

the whole "I'm smarter cause I'm jaded" schtick is old as hell. We tried it in the 90s. it was just as dumb then.

The truth is defined by whoever yells their side of the story the loudest.

Outside of a courtroom, material facts and evidence don't matter the slightest bit. Defamation? Ha.

And even with courts ruling against you, it changes nothing. Look at the Gary Wilson and Nicole Prause fiasco.

The world will never have another Mr. Rogers. People are still trying to dig up dirt on him. Even Melanie got cancelled.

Dude, Gary Wilson had her name posted over 10,000 times claiming she was in porn and all kinds of nonsense before he killed himself. What a f-ing nightmare. And he was the one who got a defamation firm after attacking all those women for > 10 years! What a joke.

Depends on how you feel about criminal justice. Is the purpose of the criminal justice system in society mainly for retribution? Or rehabilitation?

Are criminals bad people? Or are there no bad people, just bad acts?

Can someone ever pay their debt to society? Should they get to start over once they've paid?

Some crimes may be an indication of a bad decision or a mistake people have moved past others are reasonably an indelible indication of bad character.

For instance good people don't kill their wives for money, drag joggers into the bushes to rape them or molest children. Neither search engines nor governments seem well suited to make this distinction so I'd just as soon privilege non criminals ability to make decisions to protect themselves over the privacy and well being of the criminals not to punish wrongdoing but out of selfish self interest.

I do not support the right to be forgotten and think false DMCA claims out to carry the same fine as copyright infringement to discourage misuse.

> Are criminals bad people? Or are there no bad people, just bad acts?

This is much too black and white. Reality has far more shades of gray in it than that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com