91–100 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one interpretation - alternative: He said the truth, Reddit tries to get out of a bad spot and throws dirt against an ex-employee.
Except if the CEO knowingly made a false and damaging statement about an employee in public, he could be sued for libel. It's unlikely that a CEO would be stupid enough to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an interesting phenomenon. Given that the story is arguably fairly relevant to the recent investment by Sam, what safeguards are in place to ensure that content like this can't be taken out of the public light by a "reporting brigade?"
What's a "reporting brigade"? I've never met Sam and am not a Reddit fan, and I flagged this story, because it's just drama.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's not "professional", where that word has the common meaning of avoiding saying hard truths on the grounds that someone's feelings and/or political position might be hurt. This significantly elevates Reddit, IMO. Their CEO acts like a fucking human being instead of a politicized, sanitized, pretentious, weasel-wording sock puppet like so many other CEOs. You have no idea how much respect I have for this.
He's adding fuel to the fire. This was a childish move on his part and certainly not leadership material.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's not "professional", where that word has the common meaning of avoiding saying hard truths on the grounds that someone's feelings and/or political position might be hurt. This significantly elevates Reddit, IMO. Their CEO acts like a fucking human being instead of a politicized, sanitized, pretentious, weasel-wording sock puppet like so many other CEOs. You have no idea how much respect I have for this.
He's adding fuel to the fire. This was a childish move on his part and certainly not leadership material.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Management being averse to criticism is not unusual, nor is it unusual for someone to believe that is why they were fired, nor is it unusual for someone to say that is why they were fired even if they know otherwise. Until the CEO responded, this was just an ex-employee with limited credibility saying pretty mild and unremarkable things few people would ever see. Now it's a CEO obviously feeling threatened and bringi…
Tbh, I view it the opposite way. If an ex-employee publicly posts/publishes in a visible way that would be obvious to the previous employer...and the previous employer says nothing, that speaks volumes more. Generally corporate silence is a sign they can't refute the statement without opening themselves up to libel/being sued. The fact yishan is willing to say this (no matter how poor the delivery) basically means he…
Is it satisfying? No. But it avoids exactly this situation.
And by the way, even that response is only expected when the company is directly asked. The correct response until then is to simply pretend nobody (or at least nobody in management) is aware of the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is not how I read it at all. This seems very vindictive to me. The employee's comment was not as bad as the response from the CEO. He was just guessing as to why he was laid off. For the CEO to jump in and respond himself shows a very thin skin. Also, the tone of the response is a little too angry. This could've have been handled by the employee's direct manager, not the CEO.
IMHO you and the parent post are both right: this is all around bad behavior by all parties involved. I was let go once. I've told the story, but I have never mentioned the name of the company and I won't tell you if asked. I also had a horrible experience with a co-founder in my first startup to the point that I consider the guy a con man, but likewise I will only tell the story with all names and identifying detail…
> Reddit is not laying anyone off, you were fired.
> Your comments about our revenue had no effect on this decision. This type of criticism is welcome and even encouraged at our company.
> I don't believe it is in good taste to publicly discuss the reasoning for any termination unless it is absolutely necessary.
> If you'd like some additional clarification on our decision to fire you please contact me or (Someone in HR) directly.
> Thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replying to public statements about yourself or your company isn't "vindictive". Things like this have a real business impact. I've cancelled interviewing at companies based on conversations with former employees that the company didn't have a satisfactory answer for. If I saw this in a public forum and Reddit failed to point out that the former employee was fired (and was aware he was fired) in a public setting (whi…
Indeed, why would you go interviewing at companies that don't have satisfactory answers for he-said-she-said, when you can go interviewing at companies whose CEO's "call out" former employees.
Maybe I just have bad experiences in life but generally people who can't say "Hey, we don't fire people in retaliation" without getting sued are people to avoid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one interpretation - alternative: He said the truth, Reddit tries to get out of a bad spot and throws dirt against an ex-employee.
Except if the CEO knowingly made a false and damaging statement about an employee in public, he could be sued for libel. It's unlikely that a CEO would be stupid enough to do that.
If it's performance related, that's all that you should state. Defining and qualifying "much" is difficult.
It's probably not best to tell the public that inappropriate interview questions have been being asked ~for a while~.
This response stinks of a small company that could have definitely benefited from using a PR statement instead of a posting from the CEO.