3 ms·
There isn't an outrage because she spoke up, there's an outrage because she publicly identified and shamed them over something so minor. It should have gone no
by katbyte 14y ago
There isn't an outrage because she spoke up, there's an outrage because she publicly identified and shamed them over something so minor. It should have gone no further then her contacting the event staff and how they resolved it
- ceol 14y agoSo, I'm wondering what world you all live in where posting a photograph of someone with no name or identity attached is "publicly shaming" them.
- katbyte 14y agowell i could be a smart ass and say a world with face recognition & the internets. Or just point out that in the photo https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/313417655879102464/photo/1 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/313417655879102464/... you can clearly see both their badges (with names) and their are wearing their companies t-shirt. Also she really should have cropped it because the poor man on the left is going to be mistaken for the one of them now.
- ceol 14y ago"Alex" something? I can't read that. And I think their company might have more than one bearded guy on staff, so it's hardly obvious.
- anigbrowl 14y agoYeah, but I can, and I found him in 30 seconds. And that's the guy who was not fired, and who may not have anything to apologize for. As best I can tell it was the person sitting to his left that lost his job. It's disingenuous to dismiss photos as anonymous when it's so easy to either crowdsource or reverse-engineer someone's identity. If you weren't aware of how easy it is, then I politely suggest you're a little naive.