←back to thread

1743 points caspii | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.551s | source | bottom
1. FridayoLeary ◴[] No.27427737[source]
Several points; the title is slightly misleading, i initially thought (in my ignorance) that OP was referring to a company employee, also this article is surprisingly open in 'naming and shaming' his competitor.
replies(1): >>27427867 #
2. caspii ◴[] No.27427867[source]
Yikes, should I have shown more discretion in naming the competitor?
replies(4): >>27427944 #>>27428376 #>>27429562 #>>27429814 #
3. FridayoLeary ◴[] No.27427944[source]
You know better then me. But i hope that since what you are saying is easily provable there shouldn't be any problem at all. Nice article, by the way.
replies(1): >>27427996 #
4. caspii ◴[] No.27427996{3}[source]
Thanks. I think it is.
5. ceejayoz ◴[] No.27428376[source]
No. People should name-and-shame more often in these sorts of scenarios.
6. janmo ◴[] No.27429562[source]
It could be that they were acting in good faith and paid some SEO agency/Guy unknowing what was going on.
7. ben509 ◴[] No.27429814[source]
Talk to a lawyer.