For members of the tech community I believe it’s quite cowardly to give opinions, for print, without willing to be named as a source. I take the other angle --

For members of the tech community I believe it’s quite cowardly to give opinions, for print, without willing to be named as a source. I take the other angle -- it's quite cowardly (and shitty) for junior "founders" to take advantage of, or otherwise make life miserable for early employees in the ways they are prone to doing: bait-and-switch games with regard to compensation, equity, or verbal agreements; plain old harassment in sexual or other forms; or just sheer incompetence[1] -- and then expect these employees to not only take their lumps financially and emotionally, but to keep forever silent about it -- on fear of appearing "embittered" or "vindictive." So to those feel they need to keep their anonymity, in order to prevent the damage and humiliation they suffered from living on any further -- as long as they are being truthful, they have my understanding and support. That is to say: in the right circumstances, there's nothing shameful about preferring to stay anonymous for the sake one's sanity and financial health. And in some cases, it may be downright prudent and necessary -- and for the better good of us all. [1] "We're sorry things were kind of rough here for you at the beginning. Management was 23 years old, and very inexperienced" was what was told to a friend of mine after moving across country to join a startup that promptly went bust, 6 weeks later -- sans severance, of course.