Hacker News Reader

Comment by PH95VuimJjqBqy | Hacker News Reader

A court ruled in their favor...

If anyone wonders why I have a poor view of the HN community as a whole, this is exhibit-fucking-A.

While I disagree with the GP's sentiment, a court ruling in her favor just means that the court agrees that she was unreasonably terminated, not that the things she said happened (please correct me if I'm wrong).

It's pretty consistent with other reports out of Amazon. Apparently the variance between different fulfillment centers is quite large - but that also tracks with Amazon's engineering divisions.

I'm only talking specifically about what a court ruling in your favor means.

Even true claims need independent verification.

And you think the court wasn't independent enough?

Right. Poster doesn't dispute any of the claims, just pours FUD on.

As an example, the piece is clearly identified as an "interview." Presented as a dialogue between CASPAR SHALLER and MAGDA MALINOWSKA.

Poster lodges this comlaint: "I knew something was up when the author asked the subject"

Speculating on the journalistic quality of a far-left magazine on HN: Taboo

Speculating on the journalistic quality of a far-right magazine on HN: "due diligence".

It's important to understand the standpoint of the magazine. If they're far-anything chances are most of the reporting is garbage. So what they ruled in their favor? It doesn't mean the journalistic integrity is worth actually wasting clock cycles heating your CPU.

A court ruled in her favor.

It stopped being speculation at that point. And while you may argue the court got it wrong, you have the burden of proof there.

- courts generally require due diligence

- There's no way in hell Amazon didn't try to out-money her in terms of lawyers and they still lost

- winning a wrongful termination case isn't typically easy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com