3 ms·

> "The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation." If the claims in the article are true, the compan

> "The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation." If the claims in the article are true, the company was being run like a police state, worse than most of the Big-Company shops that we love to deride here on HN. A borderline abusive work environment that's policed over by the family patriarch and matriarch... that's "small stuff"?! Damage to one's reputation is only unfair if the claims leveled against you aren't true. I suspect we haven't heard the last salvo fired in this whole brouhaha, but if these claims are on the mark, I'd say reputation hit deserved.

jfarmer 15y ago
Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their circus.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism". We've seen the ugly side of internet vigilantism - anonymous accusations, no chance to respond, personal information posted online, threats and intimidation, the works. But yet, that's not what has happened here - it strikes me as disingenuous to try and color this with a weasel word like "vigilantism" when nothing of the sort has happened. In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism". Unprofessional perhaps, but vigilantism? Get real.
- jfarmer 15y ago
  'A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism".' Yes, it is. This isn't meticulously researched. This is not a 60 Minutes exposé. Did Anthony do any fact checking? Did he spend time researching the company and verifying these people's stories? No, he wrote an article in the Fox News style. Who needs fact-checking when you can just get people from two opposing camps to contradict each other? It was gossip. It worked. It's no better than an article about how such-and-such celebrity yelled at a waitress and made her cry. 'In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism".' Again, yes, by definition. If you put your name to it I'd think it was distasteful and a little petty, assuming we're talking about bad management and not something criminal. If you didn't, I'd think you were a coward. (This is my last response, so you can have the last word if you care to.)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

jfarmer 15y ago

Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their circus.

potatolicious 15y ago
A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism". We've seen the ugly side of internet vigilantism - anonymous accusations, no chance to respond, personal information posted online, threats and intimidation, the works. But yet, that's not what has happened here - it strikes me as disingenuous to try and color this with a weasel word like "vigilantism" when nothing of the sort has happened. In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism". Unprofessional perhaps, but vigilantism? Get real.
jfarmer 15y ago
'A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism".' Yes, it is. This isn't meticulously researched. This is not a 60 Minutes exposé. Did Anthony do any fact checking? Did he spend time researching the company and verifying these people's stories? No, he wrote an article in the Fox News style. Who needs fact-checking when you can just get people from two opposing camps to contradict each other? It was gossip. It worked. It's no better than an article about how such-and-such celebrity yelled at a waitress and made her cry. 'In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism".' Again, yes, by definition. If you put your name to it I'd think it was distasteful and a little petty, assuming we're talking about bad management and not something criminal. If you didn't, I'd think you were a coward. (This is my last response, so you can have the last word if you care to.)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]