3 ms·
> If she was going to be fired for it should have been because of her actions, not because some dickwads are blackmailing the company. Why are we assuming that
by jrajav 14y ago
> If she was going to be fired for it should have been because of her actions, not because some dickwads are blackmailing the company.
Why are we assuming that it was the second and not the first?
- citricsquid 14y agoThey would not have made a public statement if this wasn't a response to the public actions.
- jrajav 14y agoI agree that this is probably a response to public actions - the public actions she made as a public representative of their company. Even if that is not THE reason, it's certainly a plausible reason, and one I find much more likely and commendable than reacting to a DDoS. However, perhaps we shouldn't just jump to conclusions ahead of a comprehensive statement.
- ktsmith 14y agoPerhaps it's a reaction to the public firing of the guy she posted a picture of on Twitter and accused of harassment?