5 ms·

There are so many things wrong with this post, I would strongly advise you to delete this. Besides the libel, it doesn't really paint you in a good light eithe

There are so many things wrong with this post, I would strongly advise you to delete this. Besides the libel, it doesn't really paint you in a good light either, especially if you're going to be looking for a job. I would suggest keeping your dirty laundry off the Internet, and delete this post.

shardling 14y ago
How does it paint them in a bad light?
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  Whistle blowing is one thing, calling people names is another. It makes him sound vindictive.
  - shardling 14y ago
    To me, it just makes them sound honestly upset, especially because this poster seems to have a history of reasonable discourse. Saying what you think about someone is not, in and of itself, a vindictive act.
    - mannjani 14y ago
      I think what steve8918 is trying to say is that a comment such as one made by shawnee_35 is not seen in a good way by some people, and I agree with him. However that does not mean that people shouldn't say what they think about someone but calling names is not a good sign.
  - _throwaway_h 14y ago
    No, this is vindictive: http://freespire.com/ http://freespire.com/. That's a site set up by a former exec of a defunct company, attacking its former CEO. shawnee_'s comment is exploding with tact by comparison, and any HR drone who doesn't see the difference doesn't deserve their position.
    - saurik 14y ago
      Yes, you can find more vindictive things: there are people out there who have not only set up a silly website, but have made it their life's mission to stalk and terrorize the people they dislike; there are even people who have captured and tortured the objects of their hatred/revenge. Obviously, this is a massively different situation than simply calling someone names, and anyone who fails to recognize that fact is being dense: these websites and comments are, after all, "harmless name calling". However, that really doesn't excuse the behavior: just because you can find someone worse than you, making you look good in comparison, doesn't mean that you are actually doing well... "have you seen Steve? he failed that class; in comparison, my C is great! if you really can't see the difference, you don't deserve to be a teacher" <- this statement isn't even false, as a C really is massively different than an F... at least you tried... but is it really something we should be happy about? Seriously?
      - shardling 14y ago
        At the end of the day, calling an asshole an asshole is not something to apologize for.
        saurik 14y ago
        I am not certain whether I agree with that; I might, actually... I certainly would if it were in private, or in context. However, that doesn't make the argument "if you think X is Y then you should check out Z: it is so much more Y you will stop calling X Y by comparison" a useful argument: you can almost always find more and more extreme examples, and eventually you are saying "at least he's not Hitler; you can tell the difference, right?".
- nsxwolf 14y ago
  OP is accusing the CEO of things that are impossible for any of us to verify. We have no idea what the truth is. I would be hesitant to hire OP because I wouldn't want my name unfairly tarnished in public like this.
bduerst 14y ago
Agreed - whether or not the CEO is an "unethical bag of scum", this person just made some colorful remarks about the CEO, and linked their real name in the same comment. All on Hacker News, which could be portrayed as a source of news for the industry, thus making the comment damaging. This is very dangerous ground, and could be a case of libel if the "unethical" CEO catches this.
- unoti 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure libel and slander are really hard to actually get judgements on. The information can't be true, and the victim has to be able to demonstrate damages. There may be other technical factors as well, such as whether the victim is famous and whether they rely on having a clear name to exist in the world. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that people get more nervous about slander than they really need to.
  - dminor 14y ago
    It's not so much that you have to worry about losing a judgement, but rather that you have to spend time and resources fighting in court.
  - bduerst 14y ago
    This CEO would have to prove that they behave ethically, and then extrapolate the HN viewership with potential customers and thus lost revenue and/or a loss of brand equity. This is certainly not a stretch for civil court, nor would it be inexpensive for either party involved.
  - mmcnickle 14y ago
    Not in the UK. The defendant must prove that the statement is true[1]. This is why the UK is a prime libel tourism destination, as the cost of defending the statement is often prohibitive to an individual. Being a statement on the internet, I believe this case could be tried in the UK, hence the tourism aspect. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Burden_of_proof_on_the_defendant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Burden_o...
unoti 14y ago
I for one appreciated the info. But you're right: shawnee should definitely consider trying to hide the hate, because even well-justified and 100% righteous anger can prevent you from landing the perfect job you want. Pretend you're a zen master; a lot of potential employers only want people who have never been victimized like this at work, particularly in their leadership roles. I speak from experience: it's better to paint a picture of a clear, strong, victorious past than a picture including the truth of having worked for unscrupulous jerks who you had serious disagreements with. On the other hand, the world would be a better place if we didn't all have to make nice-nice and pretend, so rock on!
jrockway 14y ago
I enjoyed reading it. I doubt this will come back to haunt the author with respect to future work. If he's good at programming, pretty much anyone will overlook his "scumbag" remark. After all, who identifies with the group "scumbag" and will be offended?
- unoti 14y ago
  This is, sadly, false. It may be true that anyone cool would ignore such things, but there are plenty of companies and recruiters out there that will consider this kind of thing a red flag and downvote people during the recruiting process. (Edit: this comment has been getting upvoted and downvoted in equal proportions, which kind of supports my point. It's an ugly truth, what I'm saying here.)
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Oh sure, some people will discriminate against you, but you need very few jobs relative to the number available.
    - unoti 14y ago
      That's a great point. And perhaps working for cool people is better. Maybe the doors it closes are doors best left closed.
  - ww520 14y ago
    But it's a great filter to avoid the types of employer who would repeat the aggravation OP was experiencing.
- e-dard 14y ago
  she
Retric 14y ago
People are way to uptight about stuff like this when it comes to finding your next job. It's true that it will close some doors, but it will open others. And, for the vast majority of openings nobody will ever know.
- eertami 14y ago
  Relevant xkcd: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dreams.png http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dreams.png
darkarmani 14y ago
> Besides the libel What libel? You mean his opinion of the CEO? Which statement do you find to be factual and a lie?

shardling 14y ago

How does it paint them in a bad light?

tlrobinson 14y ago
Whistle blowing is one thing, calling people names is another. It makes him sound vindictive.
- shardling 14y ago
  To me, it just makes them sound honestly upset, especially because this poster seems to have a history of reasonable discourse. Saying what you think about someone is not, in and of itself, a vindictive act.
  - mannjani 14y ago
    I think what steve8918 is trying to say is that a comment such as one made by shawnee_35 is not seen in a good way by some people, and I agree with him. However that does not mean that people shouldn't say what they think about someone but calling names is not a good sign.
- _throwaway_h 14y ago
  No, this is vindictive: http://freespire.com/ http://freespire.com/. That's a site set up by a former exec of a defunct company, attacking its former CEO. shawnee_'s comment is exploding with tact by comparison, and any HR drone who doesn't see the difference doesn't deserve their position.
  - saurik 14y ago
    Yes, you can find more vindictive things: there are people out there who have not only set up a silly website, but have made it their life's mission to stalk and terrorize the people they dislike; there are even people who have captured and tortured the objects of their hatred/revenge. Obviously, this is a massively different situation than simply calling someone names, and anyone who fails to recognize that fact is being dense: these websites and comments are, after all, "harmless name calling". However, that really doesn't excuse the behavior: just because you can find someone worse than you, making you look good in comparison, doesn't mean that you are actually doing well... "have you seen Steve? he failed that class; in comparison, my C is great! if you really can't see the difference, you don't deserve to be a teacher" <- this statement isn't even false, as a C really is massively different than an F... at least you tried... but is it really something we should be happy about? Seriously?
    - shardling 14y ago
      At the end of the day, calling an asshole an asshole is not something to apologize for.
      - saurik 14y ago
        I am not certain whether I agree with that; I might, actually... I certainly would if it were in private, or in context. However, that doesn't make the argument "if you think X is Y then you should check out Z: it is so much more Y you will stop calling X Y by comparison" a useful argument: you can almost always find more and more extreme examples, and eventually you are saying "at least he's not Hitler; you can tell the difference, right?".
nsxwolf 14y ago
OP is accusing the CEO of things that are impossible for any of us to verify. We have no idea what the truth is. I would be hesitant to hire OP because I wouldn't want my name unfairly tarnished in public like this.

bduerst 14y ago

Agreed - whether or not the CEO is an "unethical bag of scum", this person just made some colorful remarks about the CEO, and linked their real name in the same comment. All on Hacker News, which could be portrayed as a source of news for the industry, thus making the comment damaging. This is very dangerous ground, and could be a case of libel if the "unethical" CEO catches this.

unoti 14y ago
I'm pretty sure libel and slander are really hard to actually get judgements on. The information can't be true, and the victim has to be able to demonstrate damages. There may be other technical factors as well, such as whether the victim is famous and whether they rely on having a clear name to exist in the world. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that people get more nervous about slander than they really need to.
- dminor 14y ago
  It's not so much that you have to worry about losing a judgement, but rather that you have to spend time and resources fighting in court.
- bduerst 14y ago
  This CEO would have to prove that they behave ethically, and then extrapolate the HN viewership with potential customers and thus lost revenue and/or a loss of brand equity. This is certainly not a stretch for civil court, nor would it be inexpensive for either party involved.
- mmcnickle 14y ago
  Not in the UK. The defendant must prove that the statement is true[1]. This is why the UK is a prime libel tourism destination, as the cost of defending the statement is often prohibitive to an individual. Being a statement on the internet, I believe this case could be tried in the UK, hence the tourism aspect. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Burden_of_proof_on_the_defendant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Burden_o...

unoti 14y ago

I for one appreciated the info. But you're right: shawnee should definitely consider trying to hide the hate, because even well-justified and 100% righteous anger can prevent you from landing the perfect job you want. Pretend you're a zen master; a lot of potential employers only want people who have never been victimized like this at work, particularly in their leadership roles. I speak from experience: it's better to paint a picture of a clear, strong, victorious past than a picture including the truth of having worked for unscrupulous jerks who you had serious disagreements with. On the other hand, the world would be a better place if we didn't all have to make nice-nice and pretend, so rock on!

jrockway 14y ago

I enjoyed reading it. I doubt this will come back to haunt the author with respect to future work. If he's good at programming, pretty much anyone will overlook his "scumbag" remark. After all, who identifies with the group "scumbag" and will be offended?

unoti 14y ago
This is, sadly, false. It may be true that anyone cool would ignore such things, but there are plenty of companies and recruiters out there that will consider this kind of thing a red flag and downvote people during the recruiting process. (Edit: this comment has been getting upvoted and downvoted in equal proportions, which kind of supports my point. It's an ugly truth, what I'm saying here.)
- jrockway 14y ago
  Oh sure, some people will discriminate against you, but you need very few jobs relative to the number available.
  - unoti 14y ago
    That's a great point. And perhaps working for cool people is better. Maybe the doors it closes are doors best left closed.
- ww520 14y ago
  But it's a great filter to avoid the types of employer who would repeat the aggravation OP was experiencing.
e-dard 14y ago
she

Retric 14y ago

People are way to uptight about stuff like this when it comes to finding your next job. It's true that it will close some doors, but it will open others. And, for the vast majority of openings nobody will ever know.

eertami 14y ago
Relevant xkcd: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dreams.png http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dreams.png

darkarmani 14y ago

> Besides the libel What libel? You mean his opinion of the CEO? Which statement do you find to be factual and a lie?