"He cannot say that people want trivia"
November 21, 2017 12:51 PM   Subscribe

CEO of HQ (a live trivia app) to The Daily Beast: If You Run This Profile, We’ll Fire Our Host
[CEO] Yusupov’s objections began with the line, "Scott said that despite the attention, he's still able to walk down the street and order his favorite salad from Sweetgreen without being accosted." "He cannot say that!" Yusupov shouted. "We do not have a brand deal with Sweetgreen! Under no circumstances can he say that." [...] When The Daily Beast read Yusupov a quote from Rogowski saying “I can make people happy and give them the trivia they so desperately love and want. It's been so great to build this community," Yusupov implored the reporter to “take that out.” Asked for clarification, Yusupov replied that Rogowski was absolutely not allowed to say that he "enjoys making people happy and giving them the trivia they want."
posted by Atom Eyes (72 comments total) 23 users marked this as a favorite
 
This feels like a Clickhole article. Mind you, much of 2017 feels that way.
posted by Fizz at 12:54 PM on November 21, 2017 [18 favorites]


Feels like a cokehole article, actually. What the actual fuck.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:56 PM on November 21, 2017 [20 favorites]


"Oh, and, er, all of this was off the record, Okay?" - Someone making a big mistake.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 1:00 PM on November 21, 2017 [24 favorites]


I don't know from HQ, but this Yusupov guy is pretty damn entertaining.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:05 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


Is the Daily Beast a satire site? I honestly can't tell anymore these days..
posted by Grither at 1:05 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


Feels like a cokehole article, actually. What the actual fuck.

I have heard that it's a hell of a drug. (Seriously, is there any other explanation for this behavior?)
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:09 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


Wacky CEO aside, HQ *is* massively entertaining. One of these days, I'll be in the money. One of these days ...
posted by DrAstroZoom at 1:12 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


Coincidencally the CEO brings up “Apple Engineer” as an example. I am in fact an Apple Engineer (although not for iPhone like the example), and I would be super fired if I gave out quotes in the same vain as the trivia host.

We have to go through all sorts of security training as part of new hire orientation. Besides the obvious “don’t talk to reporters, refer them to the press office”, we are told that disclosing any sort of info can be used by competitors. “Things are busy, but I’ll more available on x date” can be used to guess product launch dates.

I’m not saying this company has the same security concerns as the richest company in the world, but the CEO is right about what would have happened if someone at Apple talked to a reporter.
posted by sideshow at 1:19 PM on November 21, 2017 [15 favorites]


"This is ridiculous," Yusupov said. "If you reached out to an Apple engineer and they gave you information about the new iPhone, would you run it? No, because you'd have to go through proper press channels."
Hell yes they would run it. What was this guy [Yusupov] thinking? (And what was the reporter thinking when running even one quote past the CEO? Although it did result in a much more entertaining story…)

On preview: yes, the Apple engineer would be fired, yes. That's not the reporter's problem.
posted by Ampersand692 at 1:21 PM on November 21, 2017 [29 favorites]


Scott's entertaining enough, but as far as the audience response to the different hosts, well. As far as I've seen he's also the only male host. You gotta hide the chat whenever one of the women host. (Actually, hide the chat at all times.)
posted by rewil at 1:21 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


Sounds like awful startup CEO desperately trying to control chill comedian he's realized he's built his very, very easily cloneable business around
posted by Damienmce at 1:22 PM on November 21, 2017 [30 favorites]


That was amazing/troubling.
posted by latkes at 1:25 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


I'm enjoying thinking about the CEO listening to these incredibly anodyne quotes and losing his mind with anger.

"He said it's been great to build this community?! How dare he! The community doesn't exist. He should be fired for saying that a community might exist or be good, and if you print anything that even implies that any group of people anywhere on earth has ever gathered together for any reason, I will sue you, your publication, and your family for slander for the incalculable damage this would cause to our product."
posted by Copronymus at 1:28 PM on November 21, 2017 [21 favorites]


I would be super fired if I gave out quotes in the same vain as the trivia host.

And you got training that covered that, explaining in great detail what kind of things you couldn't say. (Which sounds like, "basically anything." But in this case, it seems that the CEO wanted an Apple engineer-style agreement without the hassle of a contract that requires that, nor any training/education to support that.

I don't get the impression that Scott thought he was breaking corporate rules when he gave the interview.
When The Daily Beast called Yusupov back a day later letting him know that the story was being reframed around his comments, Yusupov brought Rogowsky onto the phone call, and falsely claimed that he never threatened to fire him.
That looks like "how dare anyone on our payroll talk about our company! No, wait; of course I'm not going to get rid of what makes our company profitable!"
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:29 PM on November 21, 2017 [5 favorites]


I am in fact an Apple Engineer (although not for iPhone like the example), and I would be super fired if I gave out quotes in the same vain as the trivia host.

...Apple would fire you for talking about what kind of salad you like for lunch?

...but you're ok with talking about that on a public forum?
posted by danny the boy at 1:33 PM on November 21, 2017 [44 favorites]


What I want to know is why on earth he's trying to run an entertainment business like an engineering firm.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 1:34 PM on November 21, 2017 [6 favorites]


I just learned this app exists and I write and host quizzes at a couple of local bars so now I'm mostly furious that some predatory psychos are making money from something fun while denigrating the two things that make it successful, no doubt treating the folks who write the questions even worse than the host. The only thing capital does here is suck living labour. At least the monstrous profession of selling alcohol to a regular crowd and hiring me to be the entertainment has some tradition to it.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:34 PM on November 21, 2017 [20 favorites]


I am confused. Does the CEO seriously think he can mandate what a part time.conttractor does and says on his off time ? Telling a publication he eats salad for lunch is in no way connected to or detrimental to the quiz company - unless they already had a pre-existing sponsorship from a rival salad producing company.

Employers don't own your entire being, especially if you are a contractor.
posted by Faintdreams at 1:43 PM on November 21, 2017 [12 favorites]


...Apple would fire you for talking about what kind of salad you like for lunch?

If I talked to a reporter and they ran a story with the headline of: “Apple employee has the following opinion about salads:...”? Yep. To be fair, it’s the “Apple Employee...” part that is problematic. Apple is for everyone, salad lovers and haters alike.
posted by sideshow at 1:45 PM on November 21, 2017 [2 favorites]


Employers don't own your entire being, especially if you are a contractor.

They're working on it.
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 1:45 PM on November 21, 2017 [10 favorites]


UK: We do a fun thing where we pretend our beloved quiz writers are elves.

US: If you talk to anyone I will fire you, we own literally every part of what you do that is valuable, do not express any humanity whatsoever.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:47 PM on November 21, 2017 [37 favorites]


I find attempting to draw equivalence between a tech engineer under NDA and a game show host doing publicity to be strange, honestly.
posted by rewil at 1:48 PM on November 21, 2017 [20 favorites]


That’s the thing, he’s not doing publicity. The host did a interview on his own. The app company (which owns the “game show” he hosts) was contacted after the fact.
posted by sideshow at 1:52 PM on November 21, 2017


That’s the thing, he’s not doing publicity. The host did a interview on his own.

A publication contacted him (the host) for quotes for a puff piece. You can be of the opinion that he should have cleared everything with the CEO (who, amusingly enough, apparently did not have a PR contact before this incident)beforehand , but stating he's not doing publicity is flat-out wrong. It states in the piece that the publication contacted him, not that he pitched the piece to them.
posted by rewil at 1:59 PM on November 21, 2017 [4 favorites]


The "he" in the "he's not doing publicity" statement there is confusing. The CEO should be savvy enough to pick up that, yeah, this is publicity.
posted by rewil at 2:02 PM on November 21, 2017


"We do not have a brand deal with Sweetgreen! Under no circumstances can he say that."

I was about to imagining a hilarious over-the-top scenario where a comedy club owner signed a deal with some brand and forced comedians to name drop advertisers products in their jokes, but then I remembered Yuk Yuks exists and I would not put it past them.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:09 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


[One deleted; let's maybe not focus on one person in the thread to such a degree that we create a self-fulfilling prophecy of a member getting in trouble with their employer.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:17 PM on November 21, 2017 [3 favorites]


Ha! I was just coming here to post this. This article is truly a thing of beauty, showing that simple, direct writing can eviscerate with devastating effectiveness. See eg the subtle beauty of the following sentence:

"He cannot say that people want trivia," said Yusupov, the founder of the HQ Trivia app.

slow clap
posted by Frobenius Twist at 2:21 PM on November 21, 2017 [35 favorites]


I imagine Yusupov is used to being the public face of his enterprises, and he finds the idea that the press would be more interested in an employee bizarre and threatening. (And Rogowski's not even a real employee—he's a contract employee. It's like interviewing a baby, or a horse, or a stapler.) It's so bizarre that it can't be possibly be legitimate; there has to be some sort of angle, like an under-the-table endorsement deal with a fast casual salad chain.
posted by Iridic at 2:23 PM on November 21, 2017 [21 favorites]




A bunch of journalists on Twitter were focusing on the "how tech companies treat journalists" angle here, but it's a broader issue: a founder who thinks his god-given right to control the universe extends so far so as to include prohibiting offhand mentions of salad bars.
posted by zachlipton at 3:21 PM on November 21, 2017 [5 favorites]


It's funny Kalanick didn't teach CEOs how easy it is to fire yourself.
posted by jamjam at 3:52 PM on November 21, 2017


This article is truly a thing of beauty, showing that simple, direct writing can eviscerate with devastating effectiveness.

I enjoyed this line too - "Highly unprofessional of you to reach out to one of our contract employees without my permission and without going through proper press channels," Yusupov said, revealing previously undisclosed information that Scott himself is not a full-time HQ employee."
posted by TwoWordReview at 4:01 PM on November 21, 2017 [29 favorites]


Don't talk to cops without a lawyer.
Don't talk to journalists without PR.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 4:12 PM on November 21, 2017 [2 favorites]


Rus Yusupov sounds like a wanker
posted by dmt at 4:17 PM on November 21, 2017


Rus Yusupov sounds like a wanker

Looking forward to his interview in next month's Startup Wanker magazine.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 5:10 PM on November 21, 2017 [5 favorites]


I heard Yusupov killed Rasputin for talking about salads.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:03 PM on November 21, 2017 [2 favorites]


Tonight's game should have started five minutes ago, but instead it just says "Technical Difficulties" and the chat is losing its mind even more than usual. lol
posted by theodolite at 6:06 PM on November 21, 2017


And it just got canceled - next game is now listed for tomorrow afternoon.
posted by mogget at 6:10 PM on November 21, 2017


Looks like they’re giving up on tonight’s game completely.
posted by rewil at 6:10 PM on November 21, 2017


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by carmicha at 6:24 PM on November 21, 2017 [2 favorites]


Handling it
posted by unliteral at 6:25 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


It's funny that he points out that an Apple engineer would get fired for taking a press interview like this one, because it's A) true and B) totally, out-of-bounds ridiculous.

How companies got convinced that such things were reasonable behavior is beyond me.
posted by value of information at 6:32 PM on November 21, 2017 [5 favorites]


The funny thing is that he thinks his trivia app is as an important contribution to society as an apple product. Any apple product.

It’s like that Chuck Lorre joke in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.
posted by valkane at 6:40 PM on November 21, 2017


"At the heart of the app is a cult figure named Scott, who hosts the majority of shows. Scott Rogowsky has become the default face of the app, and while other hosts sometimes fill in, Scott is undoubtedly the favorite. It’s Scott’s face that is plastered all over HQ’s press materials, after all. "

Wait, the company's brand is built upon a *contractor*. Oh, that's a bit of a mistake. Sounds like he is literally your core competence.

Ironically, it sounds like the contractor had significantly better press savvy than the CEO. Literally, the CEO should never speak to the press - and that contractor (who should be hired full time, you dumb-asses) should be the public face of the company.

"After a back and forth wherein Yusupov told The Daily Beast its reporter would never be allowed to talk to Rogowsky again, the co-founder nervously stated that the conversation was off the record, something he had not stated before that point and a precondition The Daily Beast had never agreed to. The phone call ended shortly thereafter."

The CEO literally has no idea how the press works. Again, he shouldn't be allowed to speak to the press. I'd be unhappy if I was an investor and saw this sort of brand-damaging behavior.

I'm glad the story ended well. That being said, it would behoove the CEO to get some media training. Also, having the public face of the company (Scott) get a puff-piece click-bait article is literally the sort of press that PR firms get paid to create.
posted by el io at 6:59 PM on November 21, 2017 [8 favorites]


Employers don't own your entire being, especially if you are a contractor.

2017 ain’t over yet, friend.
posted by milarepa at 7:13 PM on November 21, 2017 [5 favorites]


I'm glad the story ended well.

Did it end well? I'm the sort of person who might check out a fun trivia app. I have zero interest in supporting this jackass.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 7:50 PM on November 21, 2017 [5 favorites]


I apologize to everyone in this thread. I read the comments first and I didn't believe the CEO was that big a tool. But he was.

the co-founder nervously stated that the conversation was off the record, something he had not stated before that point and a precondition The Daily Beast had never agreed to.

It's not a good sign when the person handling PR lacks knowledge that could've been picked up from reading All The President's Men in high school.

----------------------------

Not to be a downer but OTOH my enjoyment is tempered by the knowledge that if the CEO had been someone whose moment in the sun was projected to run past next Tuesday, a lot of journalists would not have burned a potential source like this. I don't read the Daily Beast much, maybe they'd have gone for it no matter what. But we found a lot that wasn't printed about Weinstein. Even up to assault of a reporter.
posted by mark k at 8:30 PM on November 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


Did it end well? I'm the sort of person who might check out a fun trivia app. I have zero interest in supporting this jackass.

And this is why companies have brand ambassadors, and PR companies/spokepeople - to speak for them in a reasonable way. A CEO's job is to communicate with the stockholders and do other CEO things. There are exceptions to this rule, but they are exceptions.

If you knew anything about the personality behind most corporate CEOs, you'd never buy anything ever again.
posted by el io at 10:42 PM on November 21, 2017 [6 favorites]


zachlipton: "A bunch of journalists on Twitter were focusing on the "how tech companies treat journalists" angle here"

I think it's even a little beyond how tech companies treat journalists. It's how they even think of the concept of journalism. That this guy thinks the journalist needs a CEO's permission to talk to one of his people is simply hilarious. The journalist doesn't work for the company. Why would he even think that? And his idea that if journalists got a leak about Apple that they wouldn't run it without Steve Jobs' permission? Ell to the Oh to the fucking Ell. Some of this might come down to a simple ignorance, but some of this might also be due to the fact that a lot of the press that the tech industry encounters is fawning, credulous trade press which has a whole other set of incentives.

I mean, if this dude wants to fire the wildly popular (and apparently only?) public face of his company because he talked to The Daily Beast for a puff piece, that's 100% well within his rights. But to expect the journalist to kowtow to him fundamentally misunderstands what journalism is supposed to be about.
posted by mhum at 6:50 AM on November 22, 2017 [5 favorites]


So, I'd never heard of this HQ game until yesterday afternoon when this piece popped up all over my Twitter feed. It sounded interesting so I downloaded it. Last night at 8pm (central) was my first chance to play - and it crashed. It looks like they got flooded with new users yesterday and couldn't scale.

(also why bother having a "chat" feature that scrolls so damn fast nobody can read any of it??)
posted by dnash at 8:04 AM on November 22, 2017


Last night at 8pm (central) was my first chance to play - and it crashed. It looks like they got flooded with new users yesterday and couldn't scale.

they had like 120k people for the $7500 game recently so i wonder how many more than that? but sometimes they do have technical difficulties and push the game back a bit

anyway the game ended up starting a half hour late and scott made a dig about how you could use the prize money to buy a PR person and i hollered out loud i love him and he must be protected at all costs
posted by burgerrr at 8:18 AM on November 22, 2017 [3 favorites]


If our example Apple engineer reads this and immediately goes, "Yeah, I would be fired for giving an unauthorized interview," that proves that Apple has effectively communicated this stance to its employees.

This makes it sound like HQ has not effectively communicated their policy (if they have one) to their "contractors." And if they're putting his face on their press releases, they should have anticipated this needed to be addressed. Like, actors give interviews about the movies they appear in. Alex Trebek and Pat Sajak / Vanna White, etc. are all the public faces of their respective game shows. Someone else is in charge of the production of the shows, but most people are only going to recognize those public faces, right?
posted by RobotHero at 8:22 AM on November 22, 2017


I still don't understand the comparison between an apple tech talking about a produce in development and a game show host doing a puff piece about his show. They're two different things!

I feel like if I could crack that riddle, much about techbro culture would become clear to me.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 8:47 AM on November 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


>What I want to know is why on earth he's trying to run an entertainment business like an engineering firm.

The going concern of both types of business relies on control, or exclusive ownership, of intellectual property its design and disposition such as production and reproduction for example. It is also a class of commodity comparable for example to real property, intangible property, and personalty if only to differentiate exchange values ascribed to each. Whether and why one intellectual property owner possess or does not possess the means to effectuate and enforce his or her ownership rights by appeal to every domain of applicable law appear to be subjects of ridicule here, a "marketplace of ideas".

Intellectual property
In general terms, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by others. The ownership of intellectual property inherently creates a limited monopoly in the protected property. Intellectual property is traditionally comprised of four categories: patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets.
[emphasis added]
Familiarity with litigation surrounding concrete merits of patent, copyright, and trademark in the public domain can induce indifference to the most robust defense of the four "rights" in US case law. That is trade secret, a pillar of competitive free trade that may enjoin any and all conduct of persons possessing knowledge of the property. Protection of trade secrets is the rationale codified by every NC and boilerplate condition of employment doc -- even the digital form served AMZN fulfillment associates.
Trade secrets consist of information and can include a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process. To meet the most common definition of a trade secret, it must be used in business, and give an opportunity to obtain an economic advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.
HQ Trivia asserts this right if only because the business does not possess patent and copyright properties.
posted by marycatherine at 9:03 AM on November 22, 2017


I’m sorry, but what? There are no trade secrets involved in whether the man eats salad or the knowledge that people, in general, like trivia.
posted by zachlipton at 9:41 AM on November 22, 2017 [13 favorites]


Sony Pictures Television has made no secret of the fact that Alex Trebek consumes one live American goldfinch as part of his pre-show ritual before every Jeopardy! taping.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:55 AM on November 22, 2017 [8 favorites]


I know what intellectual property is, marycatherine, and that doesn't actually answer my question because absolutely nothing the CEO was objecting to was close to intellectual property. His iPhone comparison was ridiculous on its face; any patentable trade secrets involved in the development of app would be programming level and not something the host could give away if he wanted to, and certainly not in danger of being revealed over the course of a puffy little free publicity interview.

His IP was never at stake here. I want to know why he thought it was, and if that belief was sincere, because taken in the broader context of tech culture blurring the line between consumer and commodity the answer could be rather telling.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 11:36 AM on November 22, 2017 [7 favorites]


Last night at 8pm (central) was my first chance to play - and it crashed. It looks like they got flooded with new users yesterday and couldn't scale.

So either this CEO is completely horrible at PR, or he's a freakin' viking at PR.
posted by mach at 11:59 AM on November 22, 2017 [3 favorites]


Just over 100k playing this afternoon, less than the 120k or so that stuck around for the late game last night. I usually forget the afternoons so I'm not sure how that compares to normal. It's a far cry from the 3,000 or so that were playing a couple weeks ago.
posted by rewil at 12:07 PM on November 22, 2017


If you knew anything about the personality behind most corporate CEOs, you'd never buy anything ever again.

I'm sure that you're 100% right. But when one of these guys goes the extra mile to foist their horseshit on the popular consciousness I like to reward them with extra scorn.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 6:14 PM on November 22, 2017


On tonight’s game, Scott referred to money as “those sweet greens”, which I can’t help but read as an open jab at this point.
posted by Itaxpica at 6:16 PM on November 22, 2017 [3 favorites]


We played last night. I really didn't want to enjoy it, but I have to admit it was a compelling experience. I didn't even want to like Scott, but he was fun! The app is just so simple and engaging my UX head is already buzzing with takeaways from a design point of view. Damn it, I hate it when I like stuff douchebags own.
posted by like_neon at 1:51 AM on November 23, 2017


And also whenever I see "Scott Rogowsky" I yell it out in my head like the little kid in Monsters Inc shouting "Mike Wazowski" (Scott Rogowsky! Scott Rogowsky! Kitteeee!).
posted by like_neon at 1:56 AM on November 23, 2017


>any product of the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by other

Scott, the host, is the intellectual property of HQ Trivia.

So when I say, HQ Trivia (CEO Yusupov) asserts its trade secrets right to enjoin "any and all conduct" of employees possessing knowledge of the IP and any "unauthorized use" of the IP by others, I am acknowledging facts in law to which Americans, generally, are indifferent. That is, sadly, commodification of human labor in the workplace as well as commodification of their part in commercial enterprise as "consumers", information consumers.

Whether that information is construed entertainment or blueprint is irrelevant to construction of argument's premises.

If an audience can be found, innerboob hipsters will rail at the reality of their transformation into bought and traded "eyeballs" and "content", then shrug. Their part in the chain is "adding value" to the ephemeral, intangible design of the IP. It is also to deny systematic identity of the production process; let us refer to the whole maintenance of effort and service by the enterprise HQ to obtain an economic advantage over competitors (profitability) as "algorithms". The systematic identity of the algorithms governing trade within a commercial enterprise is not public knowledge. So. You pick at the salad.

What I have also acknowledged is, Yusupov capacity or incapacity to effectuate and enforce his rights by comparison to other similarly situated firms, say, Facebook or NFL Properties, in no way vacates protection due HQ Trivia by law.
posted by marycatherine at 1:51 PM on November 23, 2017


But like, if Scott Rogowsky is at a party, and someone asks, "What do you do for a living?" is he allowed to answer?
posted by RobotHero at 2:15 PM on November 23, 2017


Scott, the host, is the intellectual property of HQ Trivia

Are you sure you understand the concept of intellectual property?
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 2:24 PM on November 23, 2017 [8 favorites]


Yes, I understand the concept.

any product of the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by other

Do you understand why applicability of the doctrine and laws (case law) extends to, propounds, "duties of confidentiality" respecting people, processes, and things, tangible and intangible "assets"? Consider why US gov declined to litigate AAPL's trade secret rights which not coincidentally assumed control of AAPL employees; rather US gov resorted to employing a third-party to violate AAPL trade secret rights in the matter of the San Bernadino iphone. Consider why NFL owners sanctioned Kaepernick in the "court of public opinion".
posted by marycatherine at 5:10 AM on November 24, 2017


References
Uniform Trade Secrets Act, domestic or interstate jurisdiction
18 U.S. Code Chapter 90 - PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS, foreign and conforming domestic jurisdiction
Read definitions before proceeding to remaining body of the text
posted by marycatherine at 5:29 AM on November 24, 2017


But Scott Rogowsky, the host, can't himself be a trade secret, since we all know he's a host, right?
posted by RobotHero at 10:58 AM on November 24, 2017


Scott, the host, is the intellectual property of HQ Trivia.

He is not a number! He is a free man!
posted by ActingTheGoat at 12:30 PM on November 24, 2017


marycatherine: Are you an IP lawyer? I'm not, but I have more than one friend that is, and I've never heard of trade secret law being described the way you seem to be describing it.

I'm bewildered how he could be the sole IP of a company and isn't a full-time employee.

Also, the US govt declined to attempt to force Apple to reengineer a new OS; that wasn't giving up IP (even a trade secret), that was forcing them to create new IP (and diverting their employees from their regular duties). I'm quite certain if there was a secret backdoor that needed to be revealed, they'd just force the company to do it, and they'd comply (as has been done with other companies). But that *really* is a completely different sort of matter than who is eating lunch where.

(unrelatedly, 'innerboob' is a really weird word to use, and doesn't really encourage folks to take you seriously).
posted by el io at 1:32 AM on November 27, 2017 [2 favorites]


« Older A bear, a bat, a pair of legs, never a tiny king...   |   The Ordovician What? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments