• xyguy@startrek.websiteEnglish
      23·
      3 months ago

      That was my main take-away. You’re the CEO of the company. If someone writes a mean blog post about your business so what? Fix the issues with the product if they are legitimate things that need fixing. Otherwise leave people alone. If something constitutes libel then sue. Otherwise it’s just someones opinion which they are entitled to.

      No I have a bad opinion about him as well (please don’t reach out to me either).

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techEnglish
        13·
        3 months ago

        First big lesson as a CEO. If they would have ignored this it would have made the rounds but faded into irrelevance. After all it is just a blog, on the fediverse. By engaging though it became very clickable, and now it’s going to hurt way worse than the original blog.

    • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
      9·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think it’s constructive to attack me because I don’t agree. I have written scathing blog posts about Mozilla. If the CEO reached out to me, I would feel a sense of responsibility to let them have their same. I’m not saying over the phone, I’m all for paper trails. But the way that Lori put themselves across, it didn’t resonate with me in a positive way.

          • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
            22·
            3 months ago

            You wrote:

            The fact that a CEO took time out to try and engage and discuss this users fears and concerns should be applauded.

            The context of the post was that the CEO contacted them and then kept contacting them after being told to stop. You are cheering on a CEO repeatedly contacting someone to tell them why their opinion was wrong. You are criticizing the person who was harassed by saying the person who harassed them should be applauded.

            You were victim blaming, and they even pointed it out kindly.

            • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
              5·
              3 months ago

              Let’s look at events objectively.

              Person A: Doesn’t like something and so publicly criticises it.

              Person B: Asks for an opportunity to defend the thing and themselves.

              Person A: Says no

              Person B: Insists

              Person A: Then posts about person B on social media in a defamatory manner.

              Social Media: Well person B is a CEO, so it’s par for the course.

              Me: Actually, it’s par for the course that someone be given the right to defend themselves

              You: You’re victim blaming.

              Me: 🥴

              Honestly, I don’t give a shit either way. I don’t even know the name or URL of the search engine and I doubt I’ll ever meet Lori. I just posted my opinion on something that was in my feed. 🤦🏾‍♂️

              • Tracteur Blindé@beehaw.org
                17·
                3 months ago

                “Objective” timeline
                Omits the repeated communications that are the source of the discourse

                Seems like you missed some things in your first read of the Mastodon thread. That might be why you’re not getting the response you’re expecting.

              • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
                15·
                3 months ago

                Me: Actually, it’s par for the course that someone be given the right to defend themselves

                You still don’t get it.