3 ms·
At the same time this might be not be that different, i.e., customers of a company interfering with the internal decisions. If firing a certain employee is that
by fizixer 11y ago
At the same time this might be not be that different, i.e., customers of a company interfering with the internal decisions. If firing a certain employee is that bad for the company, investors would be a lot more upset than the customers. (and TBH, the likelihood that one single individual is that integral to the company is practically zero; not saying it was a good decision; I don't think enough details have been made public).
Even though I admit reddit is a strange place, somewhat halfway between a company and a governing body with democracy-like structure. Still, given the sheer amount of userbase, it's unlikely that the activism of the mods and a chuck of active users (who are upvoting the boycott related posts) would seriously affect it (i.e., bring the website down in the long term). Probably such internal decisions would change the flavor/nature of the website.
- wutbrodo 11y agoIt's a misreading of the situation to suggest that the uproar is over Victoria's firing per se. It was simply the spark that set off dissatisfaction that already existed about the (perceived) extractive relation that the company has towards its "volunteer" labor. To use a clear topical analogy, people weren't upset about Michael Brown per se to the point of rioting in the streets. His case was just a rallying point for frustrations over perceived systemic police abuse of power.