4 ms·

Popular opinion of the decade: Social media is vile. Why are we live-tooting (ugh) our client's private disasters? The indiscretion is staggering. This accoun

Popular opinion of the decade: Social media is vile. Why are we live-tooting (ugh) our client's private disasters? The indiscretion is staggering. This account casts its author in as bad a light as it does their client. I wouldn't want to work with either.

macspoofing 4y ago
>Why are we live-tooting (ugh) our client's private disasters? Indeed. I'm glad they are, because it is fascinating but very odd. I'm sure it's not hard to identify the customer either.
- guhidalg 4y ago
  I'm glad they are too. Let's take another example: what if the client was a healthcare provider and instead of us merely chuckling at the inconvenience of losses we witnessed deaths from management's incompetence. Would you still want the event to stay confidential if someone you knew died? I'm glad someone is discreetly share details of the situation to signal to the world "Hey if you fuck up compliance people can die, please don't do it like this" instead of keeping it confidential.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  >I'm sure it's not hard to identify the customer either. OP seems rather sure of the opposite: >But I felt I needed to address one particular concern that has been repeatedly raised. That of the identity of the company in question. >I’m a professional, and I’ve been doing this a long ol’ time. There is no way I’m going to risk the identity of the company, or my reputation, or the potential legal consequences for some interaction on social media. >So to clarify, enough details of the incident and those involved have been changed to protect their identity and everyone else involved. I am confident that you could work at the company involved and not even be aware this happened, even after reading this Partly due to scale and partly due to managerial secrecy.
cschep 4y ago
I found the writer to be downright empathetic. People make these decisions on purpose to cause their employees this much pain and you're worried about defending their feelings from a writer who is actually deploying empathy? I am so confused by this position. If the writing was nasty and exposing specifics, sure, but it very much is not.
- rcoveson 4y ago
  I'm not defeding the "feelings" of the company. I'm pointing out unprofessional behavior encouraged by a culture of oversharing. Journalists and other outside observers can and should write about corporate incompetence wherever they find it. When you're in a paid position of trust, though, talking about your client's failings is tacky. I agree that the writing isn't nasty. The specificity is the key. I guess to some people this came across as sufficiently anonymized. To me, it seems like anybody working at this place knows that the auther is talking about their company, which is a problem in and of itself. But it also means we're just one equally-indiscreet reply away from knowing exactly who this is (something like "yeah, I work here and..."). Though I really don't think that even that much additional info is necessary to deanonymize this. Just a hunch; obviously you disagree.
- luckylion 4y ago
  > People make these decisions on purpose to cause their employees this much pain Do you actually truly believe this?
  - cschep 4y ago
    I can see how the ambiguity makes it seem like I'm saying that I think the people made this decision to directly cause pain. That's not what I meant and no I don't believe they made the decision trying to hurt people. What I do think happened is that they saw how much pain it would cause people, then they looked at some fucking dollar amount and some spreadsheet and said "that's fine". I think that's fucked up.
hgsgm 4y ago
Which of these two anonymous organizations will you be boycotting?
- rcoveson 4y ago
  The author's account is about as anonymous as Lemony Snicket is pseudonymous. Technically, but not practically. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike this person. It's not a "boycott". I'd just prefer not to be their customer, because this story goes a bit over where I'd draw the line of oversharing. I don't imagine that it will every actually come up, and I hope it never does.
kneebonian 4y ago
Because we all learn from it can see what went wrong and what didn't and overall become better practioners, whereas in the old days everyone would be making the same mistakes and no one would learn from them. Also he made pretty clear that he was anonymzing it to the point it would be incredibly difficult to tell.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I will admit that it caught my eye too. No names were mentioned, but how difficult would it be to determine who the client was/is? Then again, most companies these days have a 'social media' clause in their contracts so that you don't do around saying things you shouldn't about your work.
mjw1007 4y ago
Thirty years ago you might have read a similarly-anonymised account of the incident in the risks digest. I don't think the reporting being 'live' makes it much better or worse, though it probably wastes more of the readers' time.

macspoofing 4y ago

>Why are we live-tooting (ugh) our client's private disasters? Indeed. I'm glad they are, because it is fascinating but very odd. I'm sure it's not hard to identify the customer either.

guhidalg 4y ago
I'm glad they are too. Let's take another example: what if the client was a healthcare provider and instead of us merely chuckling at the inconvenience of losses we witnessed deaths from management's incompetence. Would you still want the event to stay confidential if someone you knew died? I'm glad someone is discreetly share details of the situation to signal to the world "Hey if you fuck up compliance people can die, please don't do it like this" instead of keeping it confidential.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
>I'm sure it's not hard to identify the customer either. OP seems rather sure of the opposite: >But I felt I needed to address one particular concern that has been repeatedly raised. That of the identity of the company in question. >I’m a professional, and I’ve been doing this a long ol’ time. There is no way I’m going to risk the identity of the company, or my reputation, or the potential legal consequences for some interaction on social media. >So to clarify, enough details of the incident and those involved have been changed to protect their identity and everyone else involved. I am confident that you could work at the company involved and not even be aware this happened, even after reading this Partly due to scale and partly due to managerial secrecy.

cschep 4y ago

I found the writer to be downright empathetic. People make these decisions on purpose to cause their employees this much pain and you're worried about defending their feelings from a writer who is actually deploying empathy? I am so confused by this position. If the writing was nasty and exposing specifics, sure, but it very much is not.

rcoveson 4y ago
I'm not defeding the "feelings" of the company. I'm pointing out unprofessional behavior encouraged by a culture of oversharing. Journalists and other outside observers can and should write about corporate incompetence wherever they find it. When you're in a paid position of trust, though, talking about your client's failings is tacky. I agree that the writing isn't nasty. The specificity is the key. I guess to some people this came across as sufficiently anonymized. To me, it seems like anybody working at this place knows that the auther is talking about their company, which is a problem in and of itself. But it also means we're just one equally-indiscreet reply away from knowing exactly who this is (something like "yeah, I work here and..."). Though I really don't think that even that much additional info is necessary to deanonymize this. Just a hunch; obviously you disagree.
luckylion 4y ago
> People make these decisions on purpose to cause their employees this much pain Do you actually truly believe this?
- cschep 4y ago
  I can see how the ambiguity makes it seem like I'm saying that I think the people made this decision to directly cause pain. That's not what I meant and no I don't believe they made the decision trying to hurt people. What I do think happened is that they saw how much pain it would cause people, then they looked at some fucking dollar amount and some spreadsheet and said "that's fine". I think that's fucked up.

hgsgm 4y ago

Which of these two anonymous organizations will you be boycotting?

rcoveson 4y ago
The author's account is about as anonymous as Lemony Snicket is pseudonymous. Technically, but not practically. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike this person. It's not a "boycott". I'd just prefer not to be their customer, because this story goes a bit over where I'd draw the line of oversharing. I don't imagine that it will every actually come up, and I hope it never does.

kneebonian 4y ago

Because we all learn from it can see what went wrong and what didn't and overall become better practioners, whereas in the old days everyone would be making the same mistakes and no one would learn from them. Also he made pretty clear that he was anonymzing it to the point it would be incredibly difficult to tell.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

I will admit that it caught my eye too. No names were mentioned, but how difficult would it be to determine who the client was/is? Then again, most companies these days have a 'social media' clause in their contracts so that you don't do around saying things you shouldn't about your work.

mjw1007 4y ago

Thirty years ago you might have read a similarly-anonymised account of the incident in the risks digest. I don't think the reporting being 'live' makes it much better or worse, though it probably wastes more of the readers' time.