I understand youâre not interested in replies to this comment, but for the sake of other readers Iâll point out parts of it that seem wrong to me:
I disagree with the suggestion that there was something sinister about a policy of âwe donât talk badly about you and you donât talk badly about usâ. That is a rephrasing of a fairly standard social (and literal) contract which exists between the majority of people all around the world. As somebody who works for the government making policy, you bet Iâd lose my job outright if I publicly criticised them. But I would also expect a variation of this from most employers.
I think itâs reasonable for an employer to no longer want to hire you or work with you if youâre saying bad things about them, but I donât think itâs appropriate for them to try to limit what you say beyond that. I think itâs not appropriate for your employer to try to hurt you or your future career prospects at other employers because you talked about having a bad time with them.
Whistleblower protections arenât exactly analogous, because AIUI theyâre about disclosure to government authorities, rather than to the general public, and thatâs a significant enough difference that it makes sense to treat them separately. But itâs nevertheless interesting to note that if you disclose certain kinds of wrongdoing in certain ways, your employer isnât even allowed to fire you, let alone retaliate beyond that. These rules are important: itâs difficult and unpleasant to be in that situation, but if thatâs where you end up, protecting the employee over the employer is IMO the right call.
[...] autophagic self-immolation process [...] toxic witchhunts [...] pillory and vigilantism
I get that threats like these are very painful for the people involved. However, I donât think thereâs any real non-painful way for people to confront the realities that theyâve hurt others through mistakes theyâve made, and thereâs no non-painful way to say âwe, as a community, must recommend that people guard themselves against being hurt by these peopleâ. You hint that there are other ways to handle these things, but you donât say what they are.
I think we could probably come up with a system thatâs kinder to the accused than this one. However, granting that sometimes such a system would demand that we need to warn other prospective employees and funders about what happened, thereâs no world that I can see that contains no posts like this. I think itâs reasonable to believe that Kat and Nonlinear should have had more time to make their case, but ultimately, if they fail to make their case, that fact must be made public, and thereâs no enjoyable way to do that.
I understand youâre not interested in replies to this comment, but for the sake of other readers Iâll point out parts of it that seem wrong to me:
I think itâs reasonable for an employer to no longer want to hire you or work with you if youâre saying bad things about them, but I donât think itâs appropriate for them to try to limit what you say beyond that. I think itâs not appropriate for your employer to try to hurt you or your future career prospects at other employers because you talked about having a bad time with them.
Whistleblower protections arenât exactly analogous, because AIUI theyâre about disclosure to government authorities, rather than to the general public, and thatâs a significant enough difference that it makes sense to treat them separately. But itâs nevertheless interesting to note that if you disclose certain kinds of wrongdoing in certain ways, your employer isnât even allowed to fire you, let alone retaliate beyond that. These rules are important: itâs difficult and unpleasant to be in that situation, but if thatâs where you end up, protecting the employee over the employer is IMO the right call.
I get that threats like these are very painful for the people involved. However, I donât think thereâs any real non-painful way for people to confront the realities that theyâve hurt others through mistakes theyâve made, and thereâs no non-painful way to say âwe, as a community, must recommend that people guard themselves against being hurt by these peopleâ. You hint that there are other ways to handle these things, but you donât say what they are.
I think we could probably come up with a system thatâs kinder to the accused than this one. However, granting that sometimes such a system would demand that we need to warn other prospective employees and funders about what happened, thereâs no world that I can see that contains no posts like this. I think itâs reasonable to believe that Kat and Nonlinear should have had more time to make their case, but ultimately, if they fail to make their case, that fact must be made public, and thereâs no enjoyable way to do that.