3 ms·
No - not for having a YT channel (per se) but for engaging in communications that FB considered to be a conflict of interest. And probably (as with most firing
by occitan 7y ago
No - not for having a YT channel (per se) but for engaging in communications that FB considered to be a conflict of interest. And probably (as with most firings), a whole whole bunch of other stuff (besides the nominal "reason").
Nonethelsss - my heart goes out to anyone dragged into a "friendly chat with HR" under any circumstances.
- alephnan 7y ago> No - not for having a YT channel (per se) but for engaging in communications that FB considered to be a conflict of interest. What was the conflict of interest? > And probably (as with most firings), a whole whole bunch of other stuff (besides the nominal "reason"). Probably, but not certainly.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- occitan 7y agoWhat was the conflict of interest? Dunno - whatever was running through the HR people's heads. The whole point is - it wasn't simply for "having a YouTube channel".
- vfc1 7y agoHe was hilarious as always: he said Facebook wanted him to start presenting himself as an Ex-Facebook Tech Lead and not only an Ex-Google Tech Lead, and the fact that he couldn't because he worked there represented a conflict of interest that benefited Google over Facebook, and so they fired him making it now possible to claim that he is also an ex-Facebook Tech Lead.