3 ms·

Mudge isn't a politician, has an excellent reputation, and would probably be much happier if Twitter just had its shit together in the first place so he doesn't

Mudge isn't a politician, has an excellent reputation, and would probably be much happier if Twitter just had its shit together in the first place so he doesn't have to kick-off a whistlestop tour on the subpoena train. First stop: getting grilled for 2h40m by geriatric attorneys & faded beauty queens. In other words, I see no reason for him to lie about any of this.

encryptluks2 4y ago
- zhxshen 4y ago
  Comparing Mudge to a cop... Just Say No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiter_Zatko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiter_Zatko
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Again, many similar people can build a positive public reputation but that doesn't mean they are immune from criticism or bad decision-making later in life. Epstein had a good reputation at one point. Larry Nasar had a good reputation at one point. Doesn't prevent people from doing bad things to further their own self-interests.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      > Epstein had a good reputation at one point. With you? He never did with me.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        By former Presidents, CEOs, Prince's, etc. Glad you never got too close to him as there is no telling what kind of situation you'd end up in.
sangnoir 4y ago
> I see no reason for him to lie about any of this I don't know the guy or his circumstances,but as someone who's been aggrieved by a former employer/manager, I can think of at least one reason he may want to stir up a raucous. It doesn't sound like he's lying, but nothing he's said sounds particularly egregious - relative to practices at other American tech companies and startups. The worst he could be accused of may be exaggeration or having standards that far exceed common practice.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  > I don't know the guy or his circumstances Then I'm sorry, but your comment is malinformed.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Based on what, your feelings? This is one of the most accurate authentic comments here.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      My feelings are: 1) this being common practice doesn't make it right 2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions.
      - sangnoir 4y ago
        > 1) this being common practice doesn't make it right But that just makes Twitter normal - that doesn't deserve congressional hearings, or whistleblowing IMO. Doctor's only briefly talk to patients before moving on, and depend a lot on the file: I don't think that is right - but that's what the American standard of care seems to have settled on. If I were to sue a doctor for malpractice, alleging they'd have made a more accurate diagnosis by spending more time with me, a valid defense for them would be to show that they followed standard practice. > 2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions. I learned from the New Yorker article that Mudge signed an 7- or 8-million dollar agreement with Twitter earlier this year that had a carve-out in its non-disparagement clause(s) for whistleblowing That definitely "adds color"

encryptluks2 4y ago

zhxshen 4y ago
Comparing Mudge to a cop... Just Say No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiter_Zatko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiter_Zatko
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Again, many similar people can build a positive public reputation but that doesn't mean they are immune from criticism or bad decision-making later in life. Epstein had a good reputation at one point. Larry Nasar had a good reputation at one point. Doesn't prevent people from doing bad things to further their own self-interests.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    > Epstein had a good reputation at one point. With you? He never did with me.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      By former Presidents, CEOs, Prince's, etc. Glad you never got too close to him as there is no telling what kind of situation you'd end up in.

sangnoir 4y ago

> I see no reason for him to lie about any of this I don't know the guy or his circumstances,but as someone who's been aggrieved by a former employer/manager, I can think of at least one reason he may want to stir up a raucous. It doesn't sound like he's lying, but nothing he's said sounds particularly egregious - relative to practices at other American tech companies and startups. The worst he could be accused of may be exaggeration or having standards that far exceed common practice.

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
> I don't know the guy or his circumstances Then I'm sorry, but your comment is malinformed.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Based on what, your feelings? This is one of the most accurate authentic comments here.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    My feelings are: 1) this being common practice doesn't make it right 2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      > 1) this being common practice doesn't make it right But that just makes Twitter normal - that doesn't deserve congressional hearings, or whistleblowing IMO. Doctor's only briefly talk to patients before moving on, and depend a lot on the file: I don't think that is right - but that's what the American standard of care seems to have settled on. If I were to sue a doctor for malpractice, alleging they'd have made a more accurate diagnosis by spending more time with me, a valid defense for them would be to show that they followed standard practice. > 2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions. I learned from the New Yorker article that Mudge signed an 7- or 8-million dollar agreement with Twitter earlier this year that had a carve-out in its non-disparagement clause(s) for whistleblowing That definitely "adds color"