
You Can Always Find an Anonymous Former Employee to Trash the Founder - ssclafani
http://hunterwalk.com/2015/12/26/you-can-always-find-an-anonymous-former-employee-to-trash-the-founder/
======
x0x0
Ok, so are there any posts by Hunter publicly trashing someone? If not, it
must be because he's had uniformly wonderful experiences with everyone with
whom he's interacted in the valley!

He also completely ignores power differentials between (often, but not always)
connected and/or well-off founders and their (often, but not always) less
well-off, less connected, less known reports. For those of us who aren't as
plugged in as he is, the stuff that trickles out to the industry news is
helpful. eg founders that have a history of treating dev teams like shit, or
founders that have walked away with millions while their employees walked away
with zero (Kevin Rose, etc.)

~~~
hunterwalk
hi! my problem is with situationally granting anonymity in press articles, not
with criticism overall. Although I generally believe people should stand
publicly behind their opinions when making specific accusations about other
people, pseudonymous systems are very important/valuable for a variety of
reasons.

Also, while now, later in my career, I'm certainly better connected than I was
when I started out, I'd like to think I've behaved consistently in this
belief.

~~~
smt88
That doesn't really address GP's comments directly. It's never a good career
move to trash someone publicly, and it's not fair to call out anonymous
sources for protecting themselves from a backlash.

As for your complaint, it's certainly true that almost any angle can be
supported by a single source. Good journalists can solve this by finding other
sources before publishing or verifying in other ways (viewing email histories,
for example).

------
kafkaesq
_For members of the tech community I believe it’s quite cowardly to give
opinions, for print, without willing to be named as a source._

I take the other angle -- it's quite cowardly (and shitty) for junior
"founders" to take advantage of, or otherwise make life miserable for early
employees in the ways they are prone to doing: bait-and-switch games with
regard to compensation, equity, or verbal agreements; plain old harassment in
sexual or other forms; or just sheer incompetence[1] -- and then expect these
employees to not only take their lumps financially and emotionally, but to
keep forever silent about it -- on fear of appearing "embittered" or
"vindictive."

So to those feel they need to keep their anonymity, in order to prevent the
damage and humiliation they suffered from living on any further -- as long as
they are being truthful, they have my understanding and support.

That is to say: in the right circumstances, there's nothing shameful about
preferring to stay anonymous for the sake one's sanity and financial health.
And in some cases, it may be downright prudent and necessary -- and for the
better good of us all.

[1] "We're sorry things were kind of rough here for you at the beginning.
Management was 23 years old, and very inexperienced" was what was told to a
friend of mine after moving across country to join a startup that promptly
went bust, 6 weeks later -- sans severance, of course.

