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 u

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.