Hacker News Reader

Comment by ErikVandeWater | Hacker News Reader

And the Wirecutter response even has a factually inaccurate statement in the first 3 sentences:

> In it, the company claims that The Wirecutter initially picked NextDesk as an editorial recommendation but later downgraded the recommendation after NextDesk declined to set up an affiliate-revenue agreement.

>We want to be clear: NextDesk’s claim is false, and its representation of our editorial decision-making process is factually inaccurate.

That claim as described is in fact TRUE. NextDesk was picked, then declined an affiliate-revenue agreement, then the recommendation was downgraded. That was the order of events. The rest I don't know, but it's pretty ridiculous to have that kind of error when these kinds of things often result in lawsuits.

View on HN

Do you have any proof of this?

The rest of the Wirecutter article where it backtracks?

Where do they backtrack? The article is pretty clear about there being no editorial influence.

Did you read about the order of events?

I believe you're taking "after" in this sentence way too literally. The order of events isn't in dispute, what's at issue is whether Nextdesk's declination to enter a revenue sharing agreement caused Wirecutter to downgrade their ranking.

This comment by geofft convinced me Nextdesk (RIP) was in the wrong in this dispute. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22144078

You're reading a causal meaning into "after" that clearly was not intended by the author of Wirecutter's response. They are clearly expressing a simple temporal relation and not a causal one.

Please be clear that I have no opinion on the truthfulness of the Wirecutter's response. Perhaps they're truly corrupt as all hell. I have no inside knowledge of how they operate.

However, it is absolutely clear you're reading something into the "after" that was not intended.

"After" is a temporal word. We have may ways to clearly express cause that could have been used. Generally, one uses "after" to imply cause without explicitly saying it.

Instead, Wirecutter has made a factually incorrect statement. That Thing 1 happened, then Thing 2 happened, then Thing 3 happened is not in dispute. Also not in dispute: Thing 3 happened after Thing 2, which happened after Thing 1.

"After" can certainly imply causality but that is not necessarily the case and, from context, we can see it was clearly not the author's intent.

I think you misread this sentence:

These are NextDesk's "claims". Wirecutter does not acknowledge them. According to Wirecutter this is what happened:

> Without the editorial team’s knowledge, NextDesk and our business team exchanged communications about setting up an affiliate agreement, and ultimately NextDesk declined to do so. That fact was never communicated to our editorial team until NextDesk itself made it known to them by email in November 2015, long after the new pick had been made.

Update: I'm not saying that I'm buying it; just clarifying their response.

> That fact was never communicated to our editorial team until

That’s a overly specific denial, their saying the editorial team wasn’t informed. However, it doesn’t actually mean the events where unrelated, as long as the editorial team assumes no agreement was reached at which point nothing needs to be communicated.

If they had actually chosen a new pick before the deal was canceled they would have said that. Instead they refer to internal emails rather than the actual timing of the events. Which where #1 Pick, #2 request for a kickback, #3 no agreement reached, #4 new pick. They don’t even deny the actual content of the emails posted.

Officially Wirecutter functions based on affiliate links and kickbacks and the reviewing staff isn't informed of this to maintain a separation. But this is a very weak defense. It's still a massive coincidence and obvious candidate for a conflict of interest when a product gets downgraded just as the kickback deal falls through.

Looking at the email exchanges I can't honestly think this is a coincidence. I've been shaken down before (unrelated to this topic) and that's exactly how it looked. My own experience going through Wirecutter's reviews kind of supports the idea that it's "pay to win".

Erik posts a comment on Hacker News, next thing you know, there's a military coup in Myanmar. Factually correct.

The phrasing implies a causal relationship, which is what Wirecutter disputes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com