5 ms·

I naturally sympathize with underdogs and this seems a classic case of bullying and power abuse. That said, this trend where such disputes are made public incl

by fleddr 5y ago

I naturally sympathize with underdogs and this seems a classic case of bullying and power abuse. That said, this trend where such disputes are made public including personal details continues to shock me. It must be my European perspective. In particular, just screen grabbing personal conversations and publishing them to the world without permission, with the person's full name, and then adding accusations...I find appalling. You may believe it to be quite alright if the person in question is only evil enough, yet I still object even in that case. It breaks the basic expectation of private communication. It smears the person publicly, whom may see his online reputation significantly damaged, possibly forever. It's impossible to defend yourself against public smearing, as the more you try to counter it, the more attention you give to the original issue, only further increasing damage. I must be old school to believe that private communication is to remain private. Furthermore, the victim (whom I fully believe to be a victim) just showed to the world how easily he doxes work relations, which doesn't look great for future employment. Again, I'm morally on the side of the blogger, but I believe this article could have been far less intrusive by leaving out specific names of individuals. You'd still get the point across. The real truth is of course that I'm old. Private communication should be treated as a thing of the past. Youngsters don't acknowledge this code of honor, and therefore one should treat private comms as public.

oliverx0 5y ago
I think the email chain actually reveals the extent to which the blogger tried to salvage the relationship and the project, and how he was acting in good faith. Explaining that this communication happened with the CEO of the company is actually an important detail that should not be left out. I do however appreciate that one would expect private communications to remain private, but in this case I think it was warranted to include such details. Basically, I don't think there is generic approach toward revealing private communication, and it should be done on a case by case basis depending on how important the details of such conversations are. EDIT: I would also point out that: > "Furthermore, the victim (whom I fully believe to be a victim) just showed to the world how easily he doxes work relations, which doesn't look great for future employment.". My impression after reading his blog post was actually the opposite, I would hire the blogger in heartbeat if I could.
- fleddr 5y ago
  I can't say I agree. He could also summarize what the company said, thereby placing the accusation at company level. It's a blog, not a legal document. Or, he could include the literal chat, yet blur the person's name and photo. I'd still object to that, but it's better. I fail to detect why to make his point, he needs to reveal full identity details. I consider it a nuclear option, but I guess others see it as just "normal". I tend to agree with your last bit. The guy has a strong moral compass, and clearly is a technical talent. I'd hire him based on that, minus this communication style.
  - 627467 5y ago
    How effective is blurring Replit CEO's name? Come on: that this is the CEO of the company making the threat over a long thread of emails is 50% of the testimony. If this was 'product manager of Replit threaten legal action against my OS project' how impactful would it be?
kyawzazaw 5y ago
Not personal details. It was relevant [professional] correspondence and you can see how professional the student was. In contrast to the CEO, who said along the lines - we got a lot of money and we have lawyers.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Somebody name and photo are personal details. Combined with a public post including accusations means a wide open attack on somebody's character. Don't get me wrong, in no way would I defend that guy or any of his words. That's not the point. My point is that private communications are expected to remain private, even more so in a work dispute. Or so is my belief. Which seems an outdated belief.
  - thefunnyman 5y ago
    He’s the CEO corresponding over his company email so this is pretty clearly a professional setting rather than a personal one. His name and photo are very publicly associated with the company already. I generally agree with your sentiment at an emotional level, as most of the time I find it to be in poor taste to share private conversations, however there’s not really an expectation of privacy in professional correspondence. For instance your company can freely monitor what you do on your work laptop if so inclined.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Replying here to your other comment: "however there’s not really an expectation of privacy in professional correspondence" Uhm, yes there is. Internal company email as well as email between companies is expected to stay between the sender and receivers. Almost every corporate email footer mentions this explicitly. I'm quite convinced that neither employers or employees would be cool with their emails being dumped on the internet for all to see. Every time that happens, it creates headlines. Professional correspondence is very much expected to stay confined to its intended scope.
  - kyawzazaw 5y ago
    It's not internal here.
HotHotLava 5y ago
Amjad is not writing these mails as a private person but in his capacity as the CEO of repl.it (as evidenced by his threat to employ company resources to shut this site down), so this is not personal but professional conversation. The name and picture of the CEO is also made publicly available by the company itself (https://replit.com/site/about https://replit.com/site/about), so this email thread is not revealing any unknown personal details.

by fleddr 5y ago

oliverx0 5y ago

I think the email chain actually reveals the extent to which the blogger tried to salvage the relationship and the project, and how he was acting in good faith. Explaining that this communication happened with the CEO of the company is actually an important detail that should not be left out. I do however appreciate that one would expect private communications to remain private, but in this case I think it was warranted to include such details. Basically, I don't think there is generic approach toward revealing private communication, and it should be done on a case by case basis depending on how important the details of such conversations are. EDIT: I would also point out that: > "Furthermore, the victim (whom I fully believe to be a victim) just showed to the world how easily he doxes work relations, which doesn't look great for future employment.". My impression after reading his blog post was actually the opposite, I would hire the blogger in heartbeat if I could.

fleddr 5y ago
I can't say I agree. He could also summarize what the company said, thereby placing the accusation at company level. It's a blog, not a legal document. Or, he could include the literal chat, yet blur the person's name and photo. I'd still object to that, but it's better. I fail to detect why to make his point, he needs to reveal full identity details. I consider it a nuclear option, but I guess others see it as just "normal". I tend to agree with your last bit. The guy has a strong moral compass, and clearly is a technical talent. I'd hire him based on that, minus this communication style.
- 627467 5y ago
  How effective is blurring Replit CEO's name? Come on: that this is the CEO of the company making the threat over a long thread of emails is 50% of the testimony. If this was 'product manager of Replit threaten legal action against my OS project' how impactful would it be?

kyawzazaw 5y ago

Not personal details. It was relevant [professional] correspondence and you can see how professional the student was. In contrast to the CEO, who said along the lines - we got a lot of money and we have lawyers.

fleddr 5y ago
Somebody name and photo are personal details. Combined with a public post including accusations means a wide open attack on somebody's character. Don't get me wrong, in no way would I defend that guy or any of his words. That's not the point. My point is that private communications are expected to remain private, even more so in a work dispute. Or so is my belief. Which seems an outdated belief.
- thefunnyman 5y ago
  He’s the CEO corresponding over his company email so this is pretty clearly a professional setting rather than a personal one. His name and photo are very publicly associated with the company already. I generally agree with your sentiment at an emotional level, as most of the time I find it to be in poor taste to share private conversations, however there’s not really an expectation of privacy in professional correspondence. For instance your company can freely monitor what you do on your work laptop if so inclined.
fleddr 5y ago
Replying here to your other comment: "however there’s not really an expectation of privacy in professional correspondence" Uhm, yes there is. Internal company email as well as email between companies is expected to stay between the sender and receivers. Almost every corporate email footer mentions this explicitly. I'm quite convinced that neither employers or employees would be cool with their emails being dumped on the internet for all to see. Every time that happens, it creates headlines. Professional correspondence is very much expected to stay confined to its intended scope.
- kyawzazaw 5y ago
  It's not internal here.

HotHotLava 5y ago

Amjad is not writing these mails as a private person but in his capacity as the CEO of repl.it (as evidenced by his threat to employ company resources to shut this site down), so this is not personal but professional conversation. The name and picture of the CEO is also made publicly available by the company itself (https://replit.com/site/about https://replit.com/site/about), so this email thread is not revealing any unknown personal details.