Leaving aside the efficacy of the new policy changes, would any of us have cared if they’d just done it internally? Would we know about this list of customer names if they’d not drawn attention to themselves?
I’m honestly having a really hard time understanding why they thought that first post was a good idea, especially given the internal context. The only explanation I can come up with is that they’re just addicted to the attention of being industry “thought leaders” and thought that this would let them get public kudos for going in a brave new direction. Instead all they got was an eminently predictable PR fiasco and a glowing write up in ... Breitbart. Whoops.
I think you could make the argument that it still is better not to post it publicly because even if it gets leaked it still is better for the company, but I do take the other side on that. Companies should be transparent about their values.
No, what makes this a real humdinger is the repeated reinforced narrative that something bad is happening at Basecamp. Starting this drumbeat of negative press was entirely optional and self inflicted. It also appears that they could’ve done more internally to defuse the situation and basically went in the opposite direction.
> they would have had to address it anyway.
The standard corporate denial would’ve been way more effective if they’d not just drawn a huge amount of attention to themselves.
> Companies should be transparent about their values.
Ah, but this wasn’t transparent, at all. It was really a form of subtweet, we now know. You don’t get transparency credit when you’re being passive aggressive towards unnamed workers.