That time Sprinklr's VP of design tried to get me fired(arb.substack.com)
arb.substack.com
That time Sprinklr's VP of design tried to get me fired
https://arb.substack.com/p/that-time-sprinklrs-vp-of-design
33 comments
> she's literally trading more risk(and that risk concerns her family too) for no gain whatsoever (it costs nothing to delete a tweet, but the loss of her job could potentially cost her everything).
I have to disagree with both of these points, but am not downvoting you.
Even if you lose your job, you are still eligible for COBRA. She, and her family, would not immediately lose their health insurance. It might cost them a bit out of pocket, but they're not going to die. Further, I doubt someone who works in social media, in the tech space, and with 50k followers on twitter these days would not be able to find their way into another job.
Second, "costs nothing to delete a tweet", while financially true, is not true across the board. People do not like to be censored, especially needlessly so.
I have to disagree with both of these points, but am not downvoting you.
Even if you lose your job, you are still eligible for COBRA. She, and her family, would not immediately lose their health insurance. It might cost them a bit out of pocket, but they're not going to die. Further, I doubt someone who works in social media, in the tech space, and with 50k followers on twitter these days would not be able to find their way into another job.
Second, "costs nothing to delete a tweet", while financially true, is not true across the board. People do not like to be censored, especially needlessly so.
COBRA, while a nice safety net, can be VERY expensive
>it costs nothing to delete a tweet
this assumes placing no value on principles or pride, which is probably not true of most people and varies by individual. you can’t reasonably price this for a person you don’t know.
>but the loss of her job could potentially cost her everything
again, you can’t answer this for somebody you don’t know. she’s in a better position to estimate the probability of being fired and how much it would cost her.
clearly she thought a 100% probability of giving in was more downside than an x% chance of losing her job. the preference is individual even if we know all of the variables, which we don’t.
this assumes placing no value on principles or pride, which is probably not true of most people and varies by individual. you can’t reasonably price this for a person you don’t know.
>but the loss of her job could potentially cost her everything
again, you can’t answer this for somebody you don’t know. she’s in a better position to estimate the probability of being fired and how much it would cost her.
clearly she thought a 100% probability of giving in was more downside than an x% chance of losing her job. the preference is individual even if we know all of the variables, which we don’t.
I think most sane people agree with this; its a tweet, delete it and move on. But we live in a world where supposed virtue and feelings matter more to some people than rational thought. If I were an interested party in Figma and this tweet cost the company a big sale, of course I would fire the employee. This whole "feelings before business" is asinine and I hate that these posts are becoming more and more common.
Honestly though, I would have done mostly the same thing she did in this situation.
One thing about living in the 21st century is this constant understanding that you're tiny and these huge corporations can swing their balls and knock you out in the process. Being able to stick it to a billion-dollar corp, to the point of them threatening a lawsuit against you, is hilarious.
Now, I have a high-paying job and enough in savings to hold out for a few years with no income, so I'm not saying everyone should do this. But yeah, I would gladly go down if it meant I could flip the bird to these narcissistic assholes who think everyone in the world should bow down to them because they're rich.
One thing about living in the 21st century is this constant understanding that you're tiny and these huge corporations can swing their balls and knock you out in the process. Being able to stick it to a billion-dollar corp, to the point of them threatening a lawsuit against you, is hilarious.
Now, I have a high-paying job and enough in savings to hold out for a few years with no income, so I'm not saying everyone should do this. But yeah, I would gladly go down if it meant I could flip the bird to these narcissistic assholes who think everyone in the world should bow down to them because they're rich.
I've read this twice now, and both times I've come away with the same feeling: this is an immature reaction to an immature reaction to an arguably immature action.
Shouldn’t be flagged. This is super insightful into the inner workings of two companies.
Good on the manager for supporting their employee and good on Figma for not giving into these scare tactics. Only a shame that the email from sales didn’t come with a “we don’t plan to give in over this or pressure our employee” as the email itself seems like undue pressure.
Hope Sprinkr is forced to use lesser tools because their VP decided to make an ass out of themselves over an innocuous tweet.
Good on the manager for supporting their employee and good on Figma for not giving into these scare tactics. Only a shame that the email from sales didn’t come with a “we don’t plan to give in over this or pressure our employee” as the email itself seems like undue pressure.
Hope Sprinkr is forced to use lesser tools because their VP decided to make an ass out of themselves over an innocuous tweet.
Classic heavy-handed information suppression tactics, good for her for sticking to her guns and good for Figma for supporting her.
I fully support this lady’s “right to say dumb shit on the internet”, but if Gina Carano can be fired by Disney for her tweets, so can she (who actually wasn’t even fired). Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences.
There's a difference between being fired for an innocuous negative joke about a company and being fired for transphobia and antisemitism.
Right, as long as you can pretextually (very pretextually, in the Gina Carano case) justify your outrage as "punching up" along those lines, you're fine! The OP clearly understands this as well, as she repeatedly stresses that the person who was upset with her was both male and likely richer than her (I'll assume that he wasn't white, or else that likely would have been mentioned as well) - therefore any sort of negative action against her would be unjustifiable since there's no "punching up" narrative, and if he ends up being punished then we can celebrate.
Boom, hit the nail on the head. There is absolutely no other reason to include this information in the blog other than to set up this (lack of) narrative.
> I'll assume that he wasn't white, or else that likely would have been mentioned as well
you are wrong. he is.
you are wrong. he is.
This is never a message I would post in a non-anonymous forum, because of fear of retaliation and being likewise labeled an antisemite and antitrans person.
If someone says that "We in group X have it as bad as the Jews did in Nazi Germany", that doesn't really sound antisemitic to me. It is probably representative of a vast misunderstanding of history, but nothing about the statement says that she hates Jews.
Likewise, if you say that you think it is silly to be forced to label yourself with your pronouns, that isn't really transphobic in my mind. You can be perfectly okay with trans people, but not like the idea of being socially forcing 99.4% of the population to label themselves for the benefit of 0.6% of the population. Anyways, I didn't even realize pronoun labeling was about trans, I assumed it was more for non-binary people. "I may look like a male and present as a male, but don't you dare use 'he/him' on me, I am a 'they/them', because I am one of the few to contain multitudes"
If someone says that "We in group X have it as bad as the Jews did in Nazi Germany", that doesn't really sound antisemitic to me. It is probably representative of a vast misunderstanding of history, but nothing about the statement says that she hates Jews.
Likewise, if you say that you think it is silly to be forced to label yourself with your pronouns, that isn't really transphobic in my mind. You can be perfectly okay with trans people, but not like the idea of being socially forcing 99.4% of the population to label themselves for the benefit of 0.6% of the population. Anyways, I didn't even realize pronoun labeling was about trans, I assumed it was more for non-binary people. "I may look like a male and present as a male, but don't you dare use 'he/him' on me, I am a 'they/them', because I am one of the few to contain multitudes"
>If someone says that "We in group X have it as bad as the Jews did in Nazi Germany", that doesn't really sound antisemitic to me.
I'll note that what Carano did was actually weaker - she just said that tribal hatred motivated the persecution of Jews and that tribal hatred was also leading to the persecution of Republicans. Her critics were more than happy to prove her correct.
She never claimed that Republicans were being treated as poorly as Jews in Nazi Germany, just that the ugly impulses that lead to one sort of persecution were also motivating another. The most-repugnant part of her cancellation is the implicit double-standard wherein progressives are claiming cultural ownership of Nazi/Holocaust metaphors - when they use them to describe Republicans it's fine, but when Republicans try to create analogies it's presumptively anti-Semitic since it denigrates the horrors of the Holocaust.
I'll note that what Carano did was actually weaker - she just said that tribal hatred motivated the persecution of Jews and that tribal hatred was also leading to the persecution of Republicans. Her critics were more than happy to prove her correct.
She never claimed that Republicans were being treated as poorly as Jews in Nazi Germany, just that the ugly impulses that lead to one sort of persecution were also motivating another. The most-repugnant part of her cancellation is the implicit double-standard wherein progressives are claiming cultural ownership of Nazi/Holocaust metaphors - when they use them to describe Republicans it's fine, but when Republicans try to create analogies it's presumptively anti-Semitic since it denigrates the horrors of the Holocaust.
Of course there is, but the relevant similarity is that both cases caused a negative impact on their respective employers from actual and/or prospective customers. Employers have every right to dislike that.
Gina Carano is an actress. Image is her business. She wasn't really fired for the content of her tweet, but for her inability to maintain her image.
was this really about whether or not Figma had a right to fire her if they’d decided to? afaict the intended point was that Sprinklr exposed themselves as insecure and vindictive over something relatively small and still haven’t been able to let it go.
I now have all this knowledge about Amy Brown's uterus, hormones, large eggs, and husband's sperm that I feel did not contribute to this story in any way...
Sprinklr get this flagged?
I posted it as I thought it was relevant to get a glimpse into the culture of both companies. I was surprised at how both companies managed it.
Also of note is the recent news that Sprinklr confidentially filed for IPO: https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/15/customer-experience-startu...
Also of note is the recent news that Sprinklr confidentially filed for IPO: https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/15/customer-experience-startu...
I didn't flag this story but it doesn't gratify one's intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
The author wrote a tweet that upset one of her employer's clients - there's nothing you can learn from this.
The author wrote a tweet that upset one of her employer's clients - there's nothing you can learn from this.
Please stop naming companies Somethingly or Boggl or Toddlr or Nameify.
Domain hoarders are to blame but yes it is annoying.
An eye for an eye, I guess.
You'd probably get more done writing them a letter directly, or suing him/them.
Why is this flagged?
I had to read this twice to understand how the Sprinklr VP tried to get her fired. He didn't. They threatened legal action and thats about it. The author overreacted and then let that contribute to "burn out" which influenced her decision to leave the company.
He was "in a position of power" and she was willing to be fired. Her feelings are valid even if she isn't a white male.
Sure, her feelings are valid. But personally attacking someone by assuming ill intent (and clearly misunderstanding intent) isn't a valid excuse.
I'm only part way through, it does seem like Sprinklr or the VP is in the wrong, but I'm curious how the author can say simultaneously that her tweets don't matter, and then also call herself a leading voice in her industry, and brag about the amount of twitter followers she has.
As the article notes, not all tweets from people that have large followings get guaranteed substantial engagement/notice.
Yes, but a tweet directly going viral is not the only way that a tweet can get attention.
If you were an industry analyst scrolling through Bill Gates' twitter, and saw that a year ago he said "Dell computers are a rip off", and it only got 600 likes and no other mentions, you might decide to write an article on that and re-bring light to it. Couldn't the same thing happen with this person? I don't know her, I don't work in her industry, so I'm just taking her word for it that she is a leading voice.
If you were an industry analyst scrolling through Bill Gates' twitter, and saw that a year ago he said "Dell computers are a rip off", and it only got 600 likes and no other mentions, you might decide to write an article on that and re-bring light to it. Couldn't the same thing happen with this person? I don't know her, I don't work in her industry, so I'm just taking her word for it that she is a leading voice.
Heh I'll probably get downvoted for saying this, but that's not brave, that's just plain irresponsible and stupid, she's literally trading more risk(and that risk concerns her family too) for no gain whatsoever (it costs nothing to delete a tweet, but the loss of her job could potentially cost her everything).
Be smarter and pick your battles wisely.