Talk:CF Moto puts previously included features behind paywall: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 4 September by Big Mac in topic Do we need some sort of "gaslighting rollback" category for this incident?
m JackFromWisconsin moved page Talk:CF Moto – Change to Included Features Now Behind Paywall to Talk:CF Moto puts previously included features behind paywall: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case: reword slightly |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Communications with distributors [[User:Vleisbom|Vleisbom]] ([[User talk:Vleisbom|talk]]) 07:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC) | Communications with distributors [[User:Vleisbom|Vleisbom]] ([[User talk:Vleisbom|talk]]) 07:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Do we need some sort of "gaslighting rollback" category for this incident? == | |||
Looking at the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsoLdrcpFy0 Louis corrects CFMOTO misinformation; here's what really happened video], I'm wondering if we need to have some sort of "gaslighting rollback" category, to document instances where instead of companies admitting they did something the consumers didn't like and reversing their anti-ownership policy, they pretend that the policy never existed. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 06:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:41, 4 September 2025
Discussion
Things we need:
Screenshots and links to all locations that expresses that there is no subscription (before they get updated)
Communications with distributors Vleisbom (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Do we need some sort of "gaslighting rollback" category for this incident?
Looking at the Louis corrects CFMOTO misinformation; here's what really happened video, I'm wondering if we need to have some sort of "gaslighting rollback" category, to document instances where instead of companies admitting they did something the consumers didn't like and reversing their anti-ownership policy, they pretend that the policy never existed. Big Mac (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)