This isn't about the beer parties, or the linkedin profile, or the personal website. It's about a petty PM with no legitimate complaints who has the misguided

This isn't about the beer parties, or the linkedin profile, or the personal website. It's about a petty PM with no legitimate complaints who has the misguided notion that you should be working 70 hours, and he is casting about for stupid reasons to call you "not committed." If that PM had any actual authority, then the author was 100% right to leave. Even if he didn't, that may not have been an environment you want to work in anyway if that sort of manipulation flies, so leaving might have been good. But I've been in situations like this where some clueless guy in a polo shirt and khakis thinks he's going to jedi mind trick you into working harder, and sometimes the correct response is to just ignore him instead of deciding the whole environment is toxic. It's a matter of how much influence this guy really had over the team. Nobody else in the office who isn't trying to pull this lame bullshit gives a damn if you go to the beer parties or not. Some people like them, some people don't. Some people just want a chance to unwind after work and shoot the breeze over a beer. Some people want to fuck off at 5:00 sharp on friday and go home and drink beers by themselves or with their real friends. Some people don't drink. Nobody cares. Sure, there are brogrammers in the world who are going to diss you or think you're lame for not doing it, but this is on the level of people who would diss you for wearing the wrong brand of shoes, so fuck 'em. Same with the linkedin and website stuff: nobody cares unless they're trying to use it as a pathetically ineffective lever against you. It would be like complaining that you haven't posted any Facebook updates gushing about your new job. You'd just laugh in their faces or ignore them, because it's just so ludicrously irrelevant. Through reading the article, I waffled between sympathizing with the author and thinking he sounds like someone who doesn't have the backbone to say "come back to me when you have concerns based on something real." The impression that I got was that the author accepted that these factors were the measure of his contribution in this particular team, and thus decided that this was not the team for him, whereas what was needed was to put his foot down and say "no, you're not measuring me that way." Because unless the whole company really was toxic, I doubt many others would have gone along with such a weak bunch of evidence that he's "not committed."