5 ms·
Oh boy, this is so naive. Big corporations always prioritize minimizing risk over anything else. Because if you screw up and the risk doesn't pay off, your inte
by matrix_overload 4y ago
Oh boy, this is so naive. Big corporations always prioritize minimizing risk over anything else. Because if you screw up and the risk doesn't pay off, your internal competitors will eat you alive.
So the dude publishes a tool for downloading internal communications (and making the intended use of the tool very explicit). It reaches some legal person in the company who gets to decide what to do about it.
So option A, do nothing. If in a month from now somebody uses it to leak a confidential email, others will remember your inaction, you lose your job. Option B, terminate the dude, block the tool. You get a pat on the back for doing your job, dude leaves.
It's really a no-brainer. If a company has someone who is literally paid to minimize liabilities, painting a big red "liability" sign on your back in front of them is not a good idea. Might as well pull out a gun in front of a cop, and then complain about police brutality (if you survive).
It is also a weird tantrum from the loyalty perspective. The corporate game is all about pretending to trust each other, while looking for multiple backstabbing opportunities at the same time. If you publish a tool saying "hey, if the corporate screws you over, here's how you fight back", you publicly show that you don't trust the company anymore. So unless the company immediately shows that they don't trust you, it's almost like they let you win the round, confirming that they shouldn't be trusted.
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
- engineer_22 4y agoYour first sentence is an ad hominem attack against the CEO. Your argument can be dismissed right there.
- steele 4y ago
- velcrovan 4y agoKind of like calling someone a pedo because they rescued some kids faster than you
- girvo 4y ago> ad hominem attack against the CEO Oh no, the poor billionaire. I'm sure he's crying himself to sleep over a Hacker News comment.
- engineer_22 4y agoProbably not, but it's not the key to intelligent discussion.
- rippercushions 4y agoManu is well aware of all of this. Quoting his last paragraph: > I am doing fine. I am very lucky: I have citizenship of another country with good health insurance, I have a green card, I am fine financially (that may have allowed me to speak up more than others). I don’t hold any grudges against people who were just doing their job when confronted with a naive and mildly idealistic troublemaker like me, and I loved my time at Twitter, especially my coworkers.
- systemvoltage 4y agoThe most important bit is the financial position.
- est 4y agoaka Fuck you money.
- UncleOxidant 4y agoand Fuck you healthcare in another country
- MichaelZuo 4y agoI don't who he is but this, along with the rest of the blog post, doesn't sound naive at all. This sounds more like someone looking for an exit, and who got it along with a severance package.
- nrmitchi 4y agoGiven that they’re explicitly setting up a situation to fire someone “for cause”, and it’s explicitly said he’s not expecting a severance package, it sounds like he didn’t get it “along with a severance package”.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoEveryone at Twitter being fired is getting 90 days of pay until Feb. 2, 2022. There may be a couple exceptions but I haven't seen any proof for those.
- est 4y ago> The corporate game is all about pretending to trust each other, while looking for multiple backstabbing opportunities at the same time Funny enough, OP (Manu Cornet) created this very famous catoon called "Org Charts" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/%22Org_charts%22_comic_by_Manu_Cornet.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/%22Org_c... I hope now he can now add Musk and TWTR to this panel LOL
- dilyevsky 4y agoProbably just one musk dot holding a gun to its own head
- danans 4y ago> Oh boy, this is so naive. Big corporations always prioritize minimizing risk over anything else. Because if you screw up and the risk doesn't pay off, your internal competitors will eat you alive. Sounds like he could easily afford the consequences, and is enjoying the opportunity it gave him to cast light on what is happening at Twitter. More power to him.
- time_to_smile 4y agoAt least once in your life you will be given a meaningful option of between "stand up to power" and "submit to power". Choosing the former you will always lose, that's the entire point of power. But this is the exact point of choosing to stand up to power. It's knowing that you'll lose and asserting that perhaps there is another power that stands above the person standing over you. I've been in this position, stood up and lost. But I can assure you that there is something you do take away from this that stays with you far longer than anything you might gain by submitting.
- chubot 4y agoAs others said, it's not naive. This is a person that has different values than you have. He doesn't care about keeping his job, if it's not on his terms. And that worked for a long time. FWIW I read Manu's cartoons at Google -- to be honest I found them to be hit or miss, though I think they got better over time. As one other person here said, I do feel like a few of them unfairly called out a single person. But this blog post makes me more of a fan! It's great when people have an agenda other than keeping their jobs, and when they recognize their right to be fired too :)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]