19 comments

[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 7.5 ms ] thread
> impersonates

The person said: “…contact a hotel on my behalf…”.

They didn’t claim impersonation.

Oh, well that’s fine, then. False alarm, everyone. Nothing to see here.
If the journalist really did make a reservation under the room block for the event, and then was denied attendance to the event, it would seem fairly normal for the reservation to be canceled by the block holder.

Really, if the journalist wanted to cover the event without being noticed he could've done so undercover.

Not really. A block is just a group discount.
Also holding rooms for that block, though.
That comes with a contact between the hotel and the block holder.
It depends how it's set up. Often a block will reserve a certain number of rooms for attendees, to ensure people will have somewhere to stay close to the conference site. Usually any unbooked rooms in the block get released closer to the event date.
It does not seem likely that he booked it under the Flock room block. The text of the screenshotted email: "called on my behalf and canceled my hotel reservation that I personally made on Hilton's website. They also have not refunded the reservation, as it is now associated with Flock in the system."

It doesn't clearly state that it was part of the room block at Benn's initial booking, and it implies that the booking was not associated with Flock when the initial booking was made.

That clearly ignores the first email from flock, where they told him "we canceled your registration and hotel reservation under the block"
I wonder if this is in the typical runbook for other YC companies.
I'm vehemently anti-Flock but am upset the majority of that group, the people taking down these cameras, appear to be anti-cars because they won't do the same for surveillance speed cameras everywhere.
(comment deleted)
The submitted headline editorializes a false claim.

A 2-steps-from-origin word-of-mouth claim of "They told me someone called on my behalf" is not the same thing as "Flock impersonates".

"they told me" (definitive) and "called on my behalf" (interpretable) are both important here.

Seems fine. Blocks can be reserved or purchased by companies and have final say on who uses them, such as customers/attendees that did not misrepresent themselves.

Dude can book without the block or go to a different Hotel.

Why is this flagged? Impersonation is a big deal :/
Because the title is an editorial lie and no one impersonated anyone. Nobody even claimed that.
I actually did read the whole thing. Read what the journalist said... You can't call and cancel someone's hotel reservation on their behalf. That's super sketch.
Nobody impersonated anyone. Turns out you can cancel someone's reservation if it is tied to you.