4 ms·

I have some issues with this sort of doxxing. In fact unless a court decision is made I think it technically unfair to the company and their employee the way t

I have some issues with this sort of doxxing. In fact unless a court decision is made I think it technically unfair to the company and their employee the way the mob has brought out their pichfork. We have only heard the story from one person - and it makes the company and its CEO look like Satan's spawns - which in my experience never is 100% true. Having said that, I am always a little unnerved browsing LinkedIn - you have CEOs, CFOs, Management always complaining about their employees, and employees doing cringy asskissing :( It makes me deeply sad what LinkedIn has turned into, LinkedIn just gives employers more power. On the other hand I have noticed that HN, reddit are places where Labour ( employees ) come to complain. Its just an interesting trend where two social networks exists - one for the capitalists and one for labor.

eropple 10y ago
Verifying his public information isn't "doxxing", especially when it's fraudulent.
mugenjin9 10y ago
The CTO of that company made a public comment on the Hacker News thread backing up her story... It should confirm that her perspective isn't just a rant. It's actually true.
rspeer 10y ago
I was concerned about the doxxing at the beginning. But now it's looking like getting the attention of an Internet mob was basically the only option for justice that Penny had left. (I wish I had more faith in the corporate legal system than this.) It's not just one person. We have now had the story largely confirmed by WrkRiot's CTO (maybe I should say "former CTO", or maybe the entire company is effectively "former") and one of its former advisors.
andrewflnr 10y ago
We actually have heard at least a bit from the other party, e.g. "she's a disgruntled employee who was fired for cause". In any case, if it's the CEO of a company we haven't heard from on a major issue like this, that's most likely the CEOs fault, most likely because they have nothing constructive to say. Also, I find your characterization of HN as a labor forum as opposed to capitalist rather curious, since its origin lies with one of the purest forms of capitalism possible, startups.
- Robin_Message 10y ago
  Startups, especially tech startups, move power from capital to labor through sweat equity, so in a way you can see them as anti-capitalist. Also, I imagine as a non-founder I am in the majority here.
  - buzzybee 10y ago
    I've had a conversation like this before and it's full of nuance. The typical action of startups is to disrupt something about the current marketplace. That threatens some older entrenched interests, but supports the investors. Some capital loses, and some other capital wins. There is a messy fight somewhere in the middle as people try to cash in. Judgment of this process as pro or anti-capital is easily interpreted different ways, but it is definitely built into "how capitalism works" to some degree. Ultimately, social responsibility plays a big role in outcomes. Companies that intend to blow up everything in their path, lie, cheat and steal their way into cashflow, and then have some key people escape before it all falls apart, are just destructive - they aren't even creatively destructive. Those companies are why startups have a common outsider's view of being shady ventures.
    - Robin_Message 10y ago
      Definitely there is an aspect of capital competing against capital in startups, but I'd argue that is neutral in terms of the power capital holds (as you say, some wins, some loses). But in terms of the systemic effect on power between capital and labour, I'd said people being entrepreneurial shifts power (in the political sense) towards labour, partly through increasing the independence of labour in aggregate, and partly through enabling labour to capture significantly more of the rewards of their work [1]. [1] For example, compare the typical amount of equity held by "last and least important founder" vs "first employee" to see that being a founder radically shifts power your way.
sanderjd 10y ago
We have now heard one story from one person and read corroboration of that story from a professional news organization along with some new information in the form of interviews and requests for comment from the principals involved. That isn't "doxxing", it's news. I use both LinkedIn and HN quite a lot and don't really see what you mean about the capital/ labor split between the sites, for what it's worth.
- wrong_variable 10y ago
  I think its just my feed of subscribing to terrible people :(
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
pkaye 10y ago
The CEO could easily provide proof regarding his resume veracity and turn the situation around.
m0nty 10y ago
> I have some issues with this sort of doxxing. Or "investigative journalism", as it used to be known. This is what the press is for. If they're wrong, I don't doubt it will end in litigation.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
The NYT article included statements from Choi, or did you not read it?
- dang 10y ago
  "Did you not read it"-style comments break the site rules, so please edit such bits out of your comments here. It's striking how much better a factual comment becomes when that sort of swipe is taken out. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
thisisit 10y ago
Not only LinkedIn, same goes for Glassdoor too. I have seen Glassdoor deleting 1-2 year old reviews after promising that employers can't change the behavior. The difference lies in how to grow your business. LinkedIn and Glassdoor cannot ask employees to pay them for being fair but can ask employers to pay them for deleting/managing the image of the company.
aaron695 10y ago
> I have some issues with this sort of doxxing. Anyone who think this isn't doxxing go have a look at Twitter, Reddit and even some of HN on how some employees who had nothing to do with the fraud have been treated. On what was basically a junior employee not being compatible with their boss. Which adults know is definitely two sided when one person tells the story (and normal).
lemonghost 10y ago
I don't think that naming the name of the company involved was doxxing. I think of doxxing as getting personal information to use in coordinated harassment of an individual. To the degree that occurred, I think it's unfortunate. (And I imagine it did occur). I found Penny's story very believable and felt really bad for many of the individuals involved (the H1-B workers most of all). There was probably a lot of professional pressure on Penny not to be seen as a troublemaker and not to name the company's name. There is a definite information asymmetry between management and workers and I feel like wrkriot was using that to exploit their employee's trust. It seems fair to out them for that so they can't just change their name and do it again (which was clearly a pattern). Had they not been mostly a fraud, they might have been able to provide a reasonable defense against the story. Had the fraud continued, in order to protect innocent employees, it most likely would have just hurt more people. It's definitely not black and white but I don't think we harassed them out of business either. It was definitely all about to fall apart regardless.

eropple 10y ago

Verifying his public information isn't "doxxing", especially when it's fraudulent.

mugenjin9 10y ago

The CTO of that company made a public comment on the Hacker News thread backing up her story... It should confirm that her perspective isn't just a rant. It's actually true.

rspeer 10y ago

I was concerned about the doxxing at the beginning. But now it's looking like getting the attention of an Internet mob was basically the only option for justice that Penny had left. (I wish I had more faith in the corporate legal system than this.) It's not just one person. We have now had the story largely confirmed by WrkRiot's CTO (maybe I should say "former CTO", or maybe the entire company is effectively "former") and one of its former advisors.

andrewflnr 10y ago

We actually have heard at least a bit from the other party, e.g. "she's a disgruntled employee who was fired for cause". In any case, if it's the CEO of a company we haven't heard from on a major issue like this, that's most likely the CEOs fault, most likely because they have nothing constructive to say. Also, I find your characterization of HN as a labor forum as opposed to capitalist rather curious, since its origin lies with one of the purest forms of capitalism possible, startups.

Robin_Message 10y ago
Startups, especially tech startups, move power from capital to labor through sweat equity, so in a way you can see them as anti-capitalist. Also, I imagine as a non-founder I am in the majority here.
- buzzybee 10y ago
  I've had a conversation like this before and it's full of nuance. The typical action of startups is to disrupt something about the current marketplace. That threatens some older entrenched interests, but supports the investors. Some capital loses, and some other capital wins. There is a messy fight somewhere in the middle as people try to cash in. Judgment of this process as pro or anti-capital is easily interpreted different ways, but it is definitely built into "how capitalism works" to some degree. Ultimately, social responsibility plays a big role in outcomes. Companies that intend to blow up everything in their path, lie, cheat and steal their way into cashflow, and then have some key people escape before it all falls apart, are just destructive - they aren't even creatively destructive. Those companies are why startups have a common outsider's view of being shady ventures.
  - Robin_Message 10y ago
    Definitely there is an aspect of capital competing against capital in startups, but I'd argue that is neutral in terms of the power capital holds (as you say, some wins, some loses). But in terms of the systemic effect on power between capital and labour, I'd said people being entrepreneurial shifts power (in the political sense) towards labour, partly through increasing the independence of labour in aggregate, and partly through enabling labour to capture significantly more of the rewards of their work [1]. [1] For example, compare the typical amount of equity held by "last and least important founder" vs "first employee" to see that being a founder radically shifts power your way.

sanderjd 10y ago

We have now heard one story from one person and read corroboration of that story from a professional news organization along with some new information in the form of interviews and requests for comment from the principals involved. That isn't "doxxing", it's news. I use both LinkedIn and HN quite a lot and don't really see what you mean about the capital/ labor split between the sites, for what it's worth.

wrong_variable 10y ago
I think its just my feed of subscribing to terrible people :(
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

pkaye 10y ago

The CEO could easily provide proof regarding his resume veracity and turn the situation around.

m0nty 10y ago

> I have some issues with this sort of doxxing. Or "investigative journalism", as it used to be known. This is what the press is for. If they're wrong, I don't doubt it will end in litigation.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

The NYT article included statements from Choi, or did you not read it?

dang 10y ago
"Did you not read it"-style comments break the site rules, so please edit such bits out of your comments here. It's striking how much better a factual comment becomes when that sort of swipe is taken out. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

thisisit 10y ago

Not only LinkedIn, same goes for Glassdoor too. I have seen Glassdoor deleting 1-2 year old reviews after promising that employers can't change the behavior. The difference lies in how to grow your business. LinkedIn and Glassdoor cannot ask employees to pay them for being fair but can ask employers to pay them for deleting/managing the image of the company.

aaron695 10y ago

> I have some issues with this sort of doxxing. Anyone who think this isn't doxxing go have a look at Twitter, Reddit and even some of HN on how some employees who had nothing to do with the fraud have been treated. On what was basically a junior employee not being compatible with their boss. Which adults know is definitely two sided when one person tells the story (and normal).

lemonghost 10y ago

I don't think that naming the name of the company involved was doxxing. I think of doxxing as getting personal information to use in coordinated harassment of an individual. To the degree that occurred, I think it's unfortunate. (And I imagine it did occur). I found Penny's story very believable and felt really bad for many of the individuals involved (the H1-B workers most of all). There was probably a lot of professional pressure on Penny not to be seen as a troublemaker and not to name the company's name. There is a definite information asymmetry between management and workers and I feel like wrkriot was using that to exploit their employee's trust. It seems fair to out them for that so they can't just change their name and do it again (which was clearly a pattern). Had they not been mostly a fraud, they might have been able to provide a reasonable defense against the story. Had the fraud continued, in order to protect innocent employees, it most likely would have just hurt more people. It's definitely not black and white but I don't think we harassed them out of business either. It was definitely all about to fall apart regardless.