Very curious how a 500 person virtual event can even be crashed or how lax their security was. Could anyone with the link have just shown up or did security explicitly let them in just to fire them for it?
All depends on what they use for meeting software, honestly. I work at Google and I'm 99% sure any employee with the right link could attend whatever meeting they wanted. If there's a password, that's usually trivial to get if you know someone that will be there. We also livestream some of our bigger calls as a simulcast, but presenters can't see who's watching those so, in my case, it would need to be the former scenario to even know Terra and the other two employees were there. If none of them said anything, there were probably moderators that knew to look for them (or others). Otherwise the normal attendees would have to know EVERYONE that should and shouldn't be there. Which I find nearly impossible to believe is the case.
Sure, but this is my point.
Either there's no real system to enforce limited attendance, which would suggest it's not considered an especially important issue or the kind of breach that would usually result in possibly losing your job, or there's a strict filtering policy — even zoom gives you the option to have a person serve as a kind of security who has to manually allow each user in — and they still allowed people in that they shouldn't have, presumably with the intention of creating a breach to then punish. Either it's such a non-issue that they don't do anything to preserve the integrity of the meeting, but they're going to pretend that it is now so they can use it as an excuse. Or they do normally enforce security and deliberately didn't so that they could use it as an excuse. Either way, it's absurdly transparent.
It's not like it was some kind of in person event where they barged past security or made a spectacle. With 500 people attending a chat room or call, how do you even notice three random people unless you are explicitly looking for a reason to go after those particular employees?
Yeah, as if they would straight up say they fired her for the Twitter thread critical of them.lol @ all the people in here like "ah, netflix say she was fired for unrelated reasons. guess there's nothing to see here then!"
The Fetishism around some corporations is wack and unhealthy.
Making both trans and transphobic content.I like what someone said in article, that they try to buy carbon credits for bigtory by having marginalized people content
The pearl clutching at those meddling LBTQIA+ folks criticising their cash cow 🤡 Really transparent of Netflix higher ups in where their priorities lie.Ah, yes...suspending an employee for...*checks notes*...attending a virtual meeting with 500 people in it. That's a new one, Netflix.
Ah, yes...suspending an employee for...*checks notes*...attending a virtual meeting with 500 people in it. That's a new one, Netflix.
It will never not be dumb how he's focused on anti trans/TERF jokes. Like you said a million other things and this is what he's using to define himself right nowCross posting:
Nobody finds "the art of standup" to be mean spirited. This particular standup is the issue.
It's maddening because a genius like Chappelle could joke about a million other topics and tear the house down every time. It's intentional cruelty at this point.
Hopefully the fired employee at the very least gets a large settlement.
OK sure, then explain all the rainbow themed products during Pride Month. /s
Seriously. Did an AI handle this situation?Nice one, Netflix.
Totally looks good. You guys must be good at PR.
It's not an earnings discussion, it's a 2-day conference for the leadership to review strategy and for the board to get more unfiltered information. It makes complete sense that they don't want every employee in attendance. At any rate, suspending someone for "attending a meeting" would be pretty stupid. In my line of work, I've joined meetings at my boss's invitation only to be scolded by their boss and told to leave but that was always the end of itA fucking >500-person Zoom meeting, at that. As if a single person, who likely wouldn't even have privileges to speak, would ruin the whole company for sitting in on an earnings discussion. It's insane.
OK sure, then explain all the rainbow themed products during Pride Month. /s
Lmao incredible.
I actually know Terra (the woman who got suspended) IRL, lol. She's great and obviously didn't deserve to get suspended. I don't have any doubts that she'd be able to find a job elsewhere and survive, she seems to be a very talented person, but this is still incredibly shitty of Netflix. Also, it's surreal seeing some random person I know have a topic be made about her here.
I highly encourage everyone to read her thread that was posted earlier. It's powerful.
And now this is when I wonder if we know each other since I'm also an IRL friend of Terra's. >.>