>>Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? Because the individual has more to lose. Which is more likely, the public boycott the co

>>Why is the burden always on the individual to not "burn the bridge"? Because the individual has more to lose. Which is more likely, the public boycott the company or the companies boycott the individual? Especially in the world of tech, even if you're right about a company's bad practice just going off and posting a rant about them online reflects badly on you. It means you probably should have just left the company before you got so angry about them. I personally have some very deeply negative feelings about my time in at&t but now I realize it's my own fault for staying 6 years when I was already fed up in my first 18 months. It just made me bitter. At the absolute minimum, when they see your name on a resume and immediately associate it with recent memory of a rant on HN or some complex ordeal described in a techcrunch article, they'll think twice about you. Maybe they'll still go forward with you; but their will be a double-think. If someone really wants to post something that's less than positive about a previous employer, that person should do it as objectively as possible. Remove all emotion, only state facts with no sensationalism or leading-questions or anything suggestive and be sure to state the whole thing as just "their very humble opinion". It would also show a sense of responsibility/maturity to state the issues that concerned in in a form of a question. "Who you the reader have done things this way?" And especially to suggest a solution. "The way I would have done it is..." What happened to the OP here is regrettable and doesn't sound like it's his/her fault. This person handled it professionally by just asking for advice and not mentioning names.