By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 14 July 2018
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:
Machiavellian said:

I did not notice I said public, I said it on purpose.  Would it be any different if someone took a video of you out in public berating someone or doing something stupid and you lost your job for it.  No matter the media used, if you are not actively working for a company or doing anything on company time then you are just an individual.  So would you agree that if a company viewed your twitter post and saw that you got drunk, pulled over by the cops and put into jail, and fired you for it that's fair game.  Same would be for Facebook or anything else.  Where is the line drawn and how much are you so accepting of this practice.  I keep reading about SJW all the time but it seems people just pick and choose what they consider SJW.

So what you saying as a developer, if I post something that I do, its considered fair game for my employer to fire me because they disagree how I handled the topic in public.  So basically what we are all saying is that you are always on the clock for your company no matter if you are on the Job or just speaking in general.  I am not saying that this isn't the world we live in, I am saying people seem to be more accepting of it and thus cannot complain when its used for someone they do like.  Its a double edge sword that bites on both ends.  No one seem to ask was there a process.  Was she just fired outright.  What policies did she break and how many chances do you get.  Nope, it was one and done but it only seems to be that way because the general people who support her getting fired has an ax to grind.  If this was your favorite developer, I wonder if support would have been different.

At Bolded:  How exactly can that be proven.  Even if it can be proven how can any company tie that to an employee unless it is their forum.  Just because someone knows you work for a certain company doesn't exactly give them total rights to anything you say as affecting their business.  Basically you just gave corporation to use that very line for anything they can consider as "Hurting" their brand and complete control over what you say, how you act, who you associate with and how you behave in any settings.  Its one thing understand how things are, its totally another to just accept it as if it should be the norm.

1.  Personally, I'm actually required to report any arrest as soon as it occurs, so twitter is an irrelevancy.  But, assume that's not the case, would my employer have the right to fire me?  It depends.  If I'm for instance an accountant, probably not.  If I'm a representative for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, yes.  

If I was in public and did something stupid, that is absolutely a different situation.  I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in most places, even if they are public.  But a public forum, a place specifically designed for broadcasting my ideas, I have no expectation of privacy.  Nobody videotaped her.  She chose to interact with a customer, and chose to do it in an entirely unprofessional manner.  

2.  I really don't particularly feel like addressing this, because whenever someone starts a sentence with "so what you're saying" it never is what you're saying.  And indeed, I never said anything likely.  She is not always on the clock.  But when she chooses to discuss her job on her free time, and chooses to interact with customers, then she is representing her company.  

3.  At the bolded, It's not a matter of people can say anything they want, or be totally censored.  As intelligent human beings we can decide on a case by case basis.  I would hope that we can reasonably agree that calling someone an asshat for a respectable criticism is hurting a brand.  

Saying that a company should be able to discipline an employee for calling a customer an asshat is not giving them the right to control everything a person says.  Ease up on the slippery slope fallacies.  

2.  Ok, I can agree with the "So what you are saying"  as I can definitely say this is now I interpret what you said, which is totally different.  As to her discussing her Job, that is actually not what she did.  She made a post about a topic she was interested in.  It would be different if she wrote a topic and stated this game I work on doing this part etc.  Actually from the tweet her job is never mentioned.  Just because this guy was a fan, doesn't give him any more rights than the average person on the street.  So my statement stands.  If I speak about programming because I am a developer, does it give my company rights to basically own what I say and tie that into a representation of their business.  As far as a business is concerned, everyone can be considered a customer.  Just having your own twitch, facebook and other public forum where you speak your mind can be considered property of your employer if you happen to say something they do not like.

3.  You continue to say this is a customer, but it was her own twitter account.  Like I said, its different if this was the company twitter account, facebook page or forum but it was her twitter account.  By all intent and purpose this does not define this guy as a customer for Arenanet.  Instead this means he was a fan of her.  So yes, this is a slippery slope because she was not on the clock, not speaking on company time and not speaking about company products or services.  Yes, she was triggered when she responded back to the guy and who knows, what was going on in her head at the time.  From the verge article she stated that he chose the wrong time to question her post because she got tired of people who do not work in the industry trying to tell her how to do her job.  As a developer I can understand where she comes from.  We get this all the time with people who have no clue how we do our job trying to tell us how to do our job.  Even the guy who tried to defend her basically stated the same thing.