5 ms·

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.

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?

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?