Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Difficult Situation

blog.sendgrid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 485 posts

Re: A Difficult Situation

#341

Post by enneff »

bmelton wrote: post #286
mathrawka wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment though... your developer advocate brought on a DDoS. Whether it was deserved or not is an entirely separate discussion. It comes down to the person who is supposed to be helping get customers and grow your company did something that is bringing lots of harm. With that said... a "heat of the moment" firing does nobody any good, but I haven't seen evidence of the manner of the fir…

That brings about something interesting. While I completely believe that what SendGrid did was justified, what if it had occurred as a result of some other, more nuanced statement than the accusation in question? For example, I believe that the second amendment allows Americans ownership of AR-15s, which some people refer to as 'assault rifles'. This is a hot button issue right now, and there are reasonable arguments…

> Is "Developer Evangelist" a 'star-like' job position where I lose my right to privacy as a result of it?

I don't know what this has to do with privacy. Adria made her comments in the public sphere, seemingly to deliberately solicit attention. If you take on a role in the public sphere, you should expect scrutiny.

I am a public representative of a software company in a similar role to the one Adria had. I regularly refrain from commenting on a range of socio-political issues to avoid alienating my developer community. It just goes with the territory. If you don't like it, don't get into Developer Relations.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#342

Post by dinkumthinkum »

drhayes9 wrote: post #282
runarb wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c My first thought was that this quote must be something made up by 4chan users to smear her or something, but it appear to be for real: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/statuses/6039856858

Argh, Jesus, I'm sick of people misrepresenting this tweet! She's not saying that black people can't make racist statements and that they get a completely free pass when it comes to being racists. She's not. Stop saying that she is. She's defining racism with a particularly sociological bent. She's saying that racism is an act by an oppressor towards the oppressed. When an oppressed person insults an oppressor they a…

You're trying very hard to fight for her. Fight the good fight. But it's delusional. She's clearly making a moronic statement. It is stupid on many levels, including rigorous and sociological levels. Many racists, even if they are white, which apparently under your's and her paradigm are the only ones that can be racist, are not in any position of power. If you take some old white, filthy, dirt poor racist, and compare to someone of another "race" in a vastly superior social position and so forth; it seems hard to make the case that the dirty white racist is in a position of power or in any real sense "oppresses" the other person in any other way but in terms of racial hatred.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#343

Post by dinkumthinkum »

AJ007 wrote: post #167
powertower wrote: post #98

They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…

I haven't paid too much attention to this story and completely missed it when it first occurred (though I've been a Sendgrid customer are their product is great) but your highlights are very relevant. This is the kind of employee you would refer to as a wild card. You just don't know what they are going to do and you have to do your best to keep them out of your company. Unfortunately for Sendgrid, if she files a sex…

I'm not a lawyer but I don't see what grounds she could possibly have for a sexual discrimination suit. She could file one. SendGrid may or may not choose to settle but it would hurt her career even further. But, I mean, she could have filed one even if this incident hadn't happen.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#344

Post by hkmurakami »

C-level people seem to often find themselves in such a scandal and are thrust into the limelight but are able to find a new position (usually) since C-level people are typically a scarce commodity.

But in this case, the person is a mid-level person who's been vilified in her industry in a very very public way. She obviously can't ever go back to being a developer evangelist. How does she find work again? Does she go back to being a developer? But will any companies take her then? (I guess the big companies would, particularly places like Yahoo which are ailing for talent)

I wonder how a person climbs back up after being thrust into a deep, deep chasm in such a public way.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#345

Post by katbyte »

sophacles wrote: post #329
powertower wrote: post #98

They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…

You know what would have been a great freaking story? 1) Guys make inappropriate jokes 2) Adria feels offended. Doesn't matter if she "should" or "shouldn't". It happened. OK so far, different people have different opinions on acceptable behavior. This particular one is explicitly unacceptable in the rules of the conference. 3) Adria texts PyCon staff, and they act exactly as they did in this sitution. 4) Adria write…

> 5) There would still be much internet hate.

i honestly don't think there would have been much hate. Allot of the anger was as how drastically she reacted by posting their photos online.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#346

Post by MJR »

_delirium wrote: post #236
MJR wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not obvious who you represent when you have list an employer in your title or bio. The point of listing it is that you're adding that affiliation and connection. Worse are not "just words". If that were true, libel wouldn't exist. Libel can cause significant damage and the connection between your twitter account and your employer makes them a target. So you might want to ask the University's legal department bef…

Yes, I recognize there are some narrow exceptions such as libel, and I'm perfectly fine being held accountable for libel. If I post something which actually libels someone, i.e. something which a court will hold me accountable for having posted, then that's fair, and I'll take full responsibility. What seems to be in question here, however, is whether people may post truthful comments on twitter, which under U.S. law…

It's more than just libel though. While truthful, your employer might not like being associated with the opinions that you're sharing. That's why employers have social media policies - to protect themselves by educating their employees so that they understand that the employee can be held accountable for the opinions shared via social media if that employee is identifying themselves online as being associated with that company. It is extremely common, and I would suspect your University does have an opinion on the matter - especially if it's a State funded school. Then especially, you're a State employee and are representing that larger group too.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#347

Post by [deleted] »

ricardobeat wrote: post #317
_delirium wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be weird to fire someone over other people's criminal activity. That reason would be akin to what Eugene Volokh has referred to as the "heckler's veto": when you e.g. cancel a controversial speech because thuggish opponents have threatened to cause trouble (call in fake bomb threats, etc.), and you blame the speaker for having drawn the thuggish behavior, rather than the people actually engaged in criminal a…

Here's a better analogy: you work at a clothing store; you're standing at the door and shout "hey niggers, what you looking at? dirty motherf*ers. come get me" at some passers-by. They proceed to tear down the store with the help of an angry mob. Should the store not hold you accountable and only "blame the people actually engaged in criminal activity"?

[deleted]

Re: A Difficult Situation

#348

Post by keli »

ForrestN wrote: post #327
powertower wrote: post #98

They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…

This whole situation makes me deeply uncomfortable. First, because it demonstrates the extent to which a company can be brought to its knees by a group of hostile people organized online. Second because hundreds and hundreds of men here and elsewhere seem quite happy to align themselves with an overtly sexist, violently threatening campaign against an individual whose views they disagree with. I am not in a position…

But why did she tweet the photo? Why stir up a bunch of shit in public? Apparently she has done it before: http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/

Re: A Difficult Situation

#349

Post by ceol »

rdtsc wrote: post #331
drhayes9 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argh, Jesus, I'm sick of people misrepresenting this tweet! She's not saying that black people can't make racist statements and that they get a completely free pass when it comes to being racists. She's not. Stop saying that she is. She's defining racism with a particularly sociological bent. She's saying that racism is an act by an oppressor towards the oppressed. When an oppressed person insults an oppressor they a…

Argh, Baal, Lord of Darkness, I am sick of people justifying her shit. > "the oppressed cannot, themselves, oppress their oppressors" Let me re-define the concepts that tell you are story. But you can't argue that I am telling you bullshit because I redefined basic concepts. But ok, let's adopt her definition. There are situations based on places, times, locations where black people outnumber the white people (could…

She didn't redefine them. As someone[0] linked upthread (which you should have seen if you're down here) racism has a sociological definition as well as a colloquial definition. A dictionary does not define words; it records their common usage. It is, by its very nature, out of date.

Regarding your example of white people in areas with a higher black population, it doesn't quite work out. Almost any other environment, you have the advantage being white. A black person doesn't have the same luxury. They can't scoot away and suddenly go back to being privileged.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5420178

Re: A Difficult Situation

#350

Post by [deleted] »

MJR wrote: post #346
_delirium wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I recognize there are some narrow exceptions such as libel, and I'm perfectly fine being held accountable for libel. If I post something which actually libels someone, i.e. something which a court will hold me accountable for having posted, then that's fair, and I'll take full responsibility. What seems to be in question here, however, is whether people may post truthful comments on twitter, which under U.S. law…

It's more than just libel though. While truthful, your employer might not like being associated with the opinions that you're sharing. That's why employers have social media policies - to protect themselves by educating their employees so that they understand that the employee can be held accountable for the opinions shared via social media if that employee is identifying themselves online as being associated with th…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN