Not on this one, but in the original where the story was first posted is a screenshot of said documents where in fact they refer to the kids as whales (iirc)
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.
> 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.
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.
The facts should stand on their own. If one feels it necessary to take the facts and "dress them up", it most certainly devalues the argument when it comes out that someone's been telling half-truths.
So, yeah, it kinda matters that we not let such sloppiness slide.
Agreed. Hyperbole is something we all fall victim to sometimes, but it is something we should fight against. Be exact as possible, even if huuuge sounds better.
