Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: