> Jones has said she lost her job after refusing requests to manipulate data
I'd appreciate it people cited what they were referencing because it appears some posters are just saying stuff without tying it back to a source making it hard to trace all the "he said, she said" and various sources.
> Well that’s a solid hit piece, considering she doesn’t actually have a criminal record; all of the cases that the author highlights were nolle prossed or no info’ed, and wouldn’t be admissible in any court, except the court of public opinion. This was 100% a character hit piece.
That said there isn’t enough information out there to understand why Jones was fired or removed from the project in the first place. Journalists have already requested internal memos under Florida’s Sunshine Law, the truth will come out over the next few weeks I assume.
Sounds like it might have been a workplace argument that led to a reassignment and then a firing because of her email letting her contacts know not to contact her re: the dashboard anymore was construed as suggesting a coverup.
The sexual harassment stuff or prior problems with the law seems totally unrelated and just something that was dragged up after this hit the news.
You linked to a very long legalistic webpage which I don't have time to read; please link to a concise neutral reference that specifically points out she was fired because I've googled and can't find anything other than biased opinions either way.
The fact remains she threatened them with resignation; using words like "proposing for discussion" runs the risk of portraying her as an innocent victim in this for anybody who hasn't read about the original case.
For those people also, the title remains opinionated without a clear reference to a formal description of the exit that is generally accepted.
I would love to see proof of this, if it’s so rampant where is the hard evidence? He said she said isn’t all that convincing coming from fired employees
She named the person that made the comment in the replies. Dragging a specific coworker through the mud publicly on Twitter is probably not the best move.
I don't see how you can possibly be that confident about the truth of what happened. Unless you have non-public information, then there is still considerable uncertainty.
This is why the incident and all reports of it is so hard to navigate, there don't seem to be enough facts - just the differing perspectives of three people, which we have to judge on the merits of their plausibility.
In the linked article, I got curious about this paragraph:
"Everything was seemingly resolved, and there was no public reaction on Twitter. It was only once the man "posted about losing his job on Hacker News" that the pushback started, and then escalated exponentially, with even ostensible allies abetting the abuse by tone and choice policing."
If I recall, and I might well be wrong, the discussion was already underway when that guy posted. I'm also having trouble with identifying anything in the content of his post that would put him at fault for what happened afterwards (which was deplorable).
Can anyone with a better recollection than me weigh in on this? The article doesn't sound particularly unbiased, and neither does it have to be, but are the facts right here or not?
There are links sprinkled all throughout the comments of instances of people having views erroneously attributed to them and the public pressure causing them to lose their jobs. Here's one I just read.[1] How prevalent these are, and whether they outweigh any positive effects of the behavior (or if you even believe there are positive effects) is probably a more nuanced question.
> We dismissed four individuals who were engaged in intentional and often repeated violations of our longstanding data security policies, including systematically accessing and disseminating other employees’ materials and work...
...is trumped-up? I have not seen any articles which dispute that these fired employees were basically tracking other employees work activities.
Perhaps, but what evidence leads you to that conclusion? The only facts that the article mentions are that she was fired for what Apple claims is the destruction of evidence related to an ongoing investigation, and what coworkers say is organizing a group to discuss internal issues. Seems like he-said/she-said right now, not “obvious retaliation”. Further evidence welcome.
Yes, but I was responding to this quote by the OP:
> I hope her lawsuit is very successful. She was clearly targeted, ostracized, and fired for speaking her mind.
Those two statements have no connection to each other, since the lawsuit has nothing to do with her being targeted, ostracized and fired, instead (as you say) it's about her being defamed.
The researcher who tweeted out the name of an employee who's email has been blocked, and throwing out theories about crackdowns and firings - that's all good.
Explaining the email account has been blocked due to mass-leaking documents - that's beyond excusable?
Sure. When facts contradict your opinion, you shouldn't hate the facts.
Then it seems very bad faith for you to be using him as an example.
"For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly."
This is simply not true. Further, if you're Twitter, and you have users that are harassing other users, that makes those users less wanting to use your platform. And you have other people that catch wind that Twitter is doing nothing about harassment, and now very few people want to use Twitter.
"The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace"
[Citation Needed]
"If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public."
I disagree. Asking someone to leave who is harassing other users is not causing themselves to be publishers.
And her personal details being available online would be a more reasonable explanation for her job being in jeopardy?
I wasn't questioning or trying to diminish the violation or how she and her family perceived it. I was just sickened by the fact that it was seemingly entirely normal that her job was on the line because of the violation she was a victim of and that this wasn't called out at all. That is a violation not from a single asshole but from an entire society. While we may take the fight and perhaps score wins on the assholes perpetrating this, what is that worth if we silently acknowledge their line of reasoning?
>but no one of the many great employees I worked with hijacked mass communication software to send an inane message.
What she's alleged to have done is basically on par with a fired employee sending off a net send on their way out the door.
>I understand why they fired her, you can't have data analysts hijacking your software to send mass messages of protest.
She was fired before the message was sent. She publicly stated that she was pressured to modify the data provided to make it look like the state was handling the pandemic better than they were. She did draw attention to this by going to the media, this was after she had been a thorn in the side of the state for a while.
Her article is worded in such a way as that it can be construed as being directed at her, but it is never outright said, nor does the guy who got fired suggest that that was the case (of course, he does have a horse in the race; however, he was very honest and apologetic in his response).
Their boss finding out what they said got them fired.
You know, we don't actually know what they said. We also don't know for sure why the guy was fired.
It might help to keep these things in mind before yelling "off with their heads" or "off with her head".
For the record, I'm neither defending them nor saying Adria handled it right. I could go on, but I already blogged about it [1] and I'm tired of repeating myself.
> Jones has said she lost her job after refusing requests to manipulate data
I'd appreciate it people cited what they were referencing because it appears some posters are just saying stuff without tying it back to a source making it hard to trace all the "he said, she said" and various sources.
reply