4 ms·

I might be speaking from ignorance here, but I highly doubt their job description said anything about making accusations via tweet. > If your team of ethicists

I might be speaking from ignorance here, but I highly doubt their job description said anything about making accusations via tweet. > If your team of ethicists has repeatedly highlighted issues and you continue to not address them, what should they do then? In the case of a company whose self-image is of openness and directness and benevolence, it seems reasonable that publicly highlight the lack of change is within reason. if they strongly disagree with the direction the company is taking, they ought to refuse to be part of it and resign. public criticism can wait until they stop collecting the (quite fat, I imagine) checks. edit: I guess I'm not really objecting to the public criticism before leaving the company. I'm objecting to the incredible feeling of entitlement it must take to expect to keep getting paid while actively damaging your employer.

Aeolos 6y ago
And how exactly is your suggestion going to play out in the long term? All the critical employees resign, until they are all eventually replaced yes-men who just care about the money or are too afraid to speak out. And if a company is doing something unethical, then why is it inherently _bad_ to damage that company until it changes direction? Acting in unethical ways has to hurt the bottomline, otherwise what incentive is there for a company to change?
- room500 6y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. You can be critical and do so respectfully and within the company. Damaging your employer should be the last resort. Cutting off your limb to stop an infection isn't inherently _bad_. But it is if other treatments are not even considered.