3 ms·

I completely disagree with this sentiment. People should know, and outing company policy like this CAN AFFECT CHANGE. Right NSA? "Just quit!" is crap when you'

by mutant 12y ago

I completely disagree with this sentiment. People should know, and outing company policy like this CAN AFFECT CHANGE. Right NSA? "Just quit!" is crap when you've invested yourself in something, when it hurts to see something you've been a part of destroyed by unthinking executive children. No.. I think you are outright and absolutely wrong.

chatmasta 12y ago
Yes, potential employees should know about bad culture. But this type of viscerally aggressive, anonymous complaint is completely unverifiable and by its very nature lacks any credibility. Yet the mob of public opinion will latch onto it as truth and Grooveshark (and by extension, its remaining employees) will suffer because of it. This is exactly the type of situation that libel laws are meant to deter. Grooveshark suffers disproportionately from claims like this, because they will bear the brunt of negative public opinion. They are largely defenseless in this situation, because even if the complaint is entirely fabricated, there is little they could say to convince public opinion of that. Libel laws give them a recourse for defending themselves in these situations. Should they find the content of the post untrue or provably disparaging, they can rightfully sue (or more likely, terminate) the employee for posting this. On the other hand, if these complaints are valid and legally provable, then there is no reason for the poster to remain anonymous. He's already effectively outed himself to Grooveshark, and therefore put himself in the line of fire. But since he's anonymous, he has no protection in the court of public opinion. Ironically, by posting this anonymously, he's actually lost any protection he could derive by attaching his name to it. My prediction is he will be fired, and have no way of explaining it to future employers other than "I posted an anonymous rant about my employer and they discovered who I was." That's not exactly a good hiring signal. So by remaining anonymous, he suffers because he loses legal protection, and Grooveshark suffers in the court of public opinion, on the basis of completely unverifiable anonymous accusations. If these accusations are founded (which, by the language in the post, it seems that they are not), then the poster should publicly sue the company for wrongdoing. However, it seems like there wasn't actually any wrongdoing, and this entire post is nothing more than an anonymous rant about a disgruntled employee's opinion. I grant his accusations no credibility, on account of his anonymity and especially his language (again, "that fucking bitch Julia".) I have no sympathy for this guy. His mudslinging is only making both him and his employer look bad, and instead of being grounded in verifiable fact, it's grounded on baseless accusations and obscene, arguably libelous, language. Yes, potential employees should be forewarned of bad culture. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about making that warning. This is the wrong way.

by mutant 12y ago

chatmasta 12y ago

Yes, potential employees should know about bad culture. But this type of viscerally aggressive, anonymous complaint is completely unverifiable and by its very nature lacks any credibility. Yet the mob of public opinion will latch onto it as truth and Grooveshark (and by extension, its remaining employees) will suffer because of it. This is exactly the type of situation that libel laws are meant to deter. Grooveshark suffers disproportionately from claims like this, because they will bear the brunt of negative public opinion. They are largely defenseless in this situation, because even if the complaint is entirely fabricated, there is little they could say to convince public opinion of that. Libel laws give them a recourse for defending themselves in these situations. Should they find the content of the post untrue or provably disparaging, they can rightfully sue (or more likely, terminate) the employee for posting this. On the other hand, if these complaints are valid and legally provable, then there is no reason for the poster to remain anonymous. He's already effectively outed himself to Grooveshark, and therefore put himself in the line of fire. But since he's anonymous, he has no protection in the court of public opinion. Ironically, by posting this anonymously, he's actually lost any protection he could derive by attaching his name to it. My prediction is he will be fired, and have no way of explaining it to future employers other than "I posted an anonymous rant about my employer and they discovered who I was." That's not exactly a good hiring signal. So by remaining anonymous, he suffers because he loses legal protection, and Grooveshark suffers in the court of public opinion, on the basis of completely unverifiable anonymous accusations. If these accusations are founded (which, by the language in the post, it seems that they are not), then the poster should publicly sue the company for wrongdoing. However, it seems like there wasn't actually any wrongdoing, and this entire post is nothing more than an anonymous rant about a disgruntled employee's opinion. I grant his accusations no credibility, on account of his anonymity and especially his language (again, "that fucking bitch Julia".) I have no sympathy for this guy. His mudslinging is only making both him and his employer look bad, and instead of being grounded in verifiable fact, it's grounded on baseless accusations and obscene, arguably libelous, language. Yes, potential employees should be forewarned of bad culture. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about making that warning. This is the wrong way.