this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
1090 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59207 readers
3158 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly at this point I feel worse for the guy who made the threat than anyone else. Can you imagine what is like working with those sort of bosses with such exploitative tendencies and an utter disregard for an entire industry? They get to ruin countless lives but if anyone gets mad that's the unacceptable one who is punished.
Then why don't they look for work at another company?
Making death threats is still a major dick move regardless of the circumstances.
It is, but all we have right now is Unity's claim that this is what happened. We don't even know the content of the threat, who made it, why they made it. All of that context could cast this in a wildly different light. I am very suspicious of Unity the company's motives here in saying this when we haven't heard from anyone else.
I think it was the police who found out it was an employee.
How can this be cast in any light that's not negative?
Companies don't just make up death threats.
They absolutely do when it benefits them and they think they can get away with it, I don't know how you could make such a blanket claim without questioning yourself just a little bit.
And of course it would be negative, but I think there's a chance the claim casts a negative light on the company, and not on the employee, who is as yet unnamed. As it stands now, any of the following could be true:
There's more, and quite frankly it gets tiresome to see people jumping to defend when ploys like this have been the playbook for shitty companies since the invention of the company. I don't know which of these things will be turn out to be true, but neither do you, and it's so boring to see someone claiming they know the facts here for sure.
They literally do though to steer the conversation to one wherein they're a sympathetic figure. Never hear of PR?
It might have been wiser, but seems to me we got to a point we should be thinking of the circumstances.
Besides, that only would have solved their individual problem, IF they even managed it. The way the company is being run would remain the same. How it would impact all the people who rely on that engine would remain the same.
It's "never acceptable" to threaten someone, but intentionally ruining countless people's livelihoods is "nothing personal". Something is off about that.
You can't just solve a company's culture by yourself.
You can either convince enough people to unionize, or you can save yourself.
Agreed but I can still understand the frustration.
Or he is just fucked up in the head. That is a possibility too.
Unity employees have extraordinary working conditions and pay. It sucks that their hard work gets tarnished by stupid executives and poor PR but let's not paint the employee as a victim here.
I'm pretty sure killing is a worse way to ruin someone's life.
The number of people being ruined is pretty different though.
I get it, it's a callous attitude, but I'm wondering if going for civility above anything else is really working out. I'd love for such situations to be settled with a reasonable discussion, but do they ever?
Not sending death threats is the bar set for civility these days?
He didn't kill anyone.
Because a threat is not an attempt. Most likely they had absolutely no intention to carry through with it.
It's still bad but saying "I'm gonna kill you" is not the same as actually trying to kill you.
Obviously, but you don't ignore it either. You don't wait for a DUI to crash before doing something about the threat. Say you'd like to shoot the president and see if the secret service ignores you.
You said that he didn't kill anyone because he got caught first. Which implies that if he didn't get caught he would have actually killed someone.
They really aren't the same. It's a common fallacy on the Internet to lunge straight to the worst possible case and equate that to whatever it is you're arguing, but it really isn't the same. Sure, the secret service won't ignore you if you say you'd like to shoot the president. But will their reaction be the same as if you've smuggled a gun in to a press conference and are spotted actively moving to get near him? Obviously not, because what I said remains true. Simply saying "I'm gonna kill you" is not the same as actually trying to kill you.
Hold on, give him time to think of more strawmen.
Time is up!
Case closed.
But they didn't just get mad (if this is the full story). They sent them a death threat. I think there is a fine line.
I'll bite: Death threats are not as serious as tanking an entire company and ruining thousands of lives.
(I don't actually think that; I just feel like playing devil's advocate today)
Death threats are personal. Corporations can be boycotted.
A fair point. None of the news articles even give us any real, meaningful details as to what happened so we don't know if it was just execs who were threatened or if, perhaps, there was a bomb threat or something. I wish we could see a screenshot of the actual threat so we could make a determination.
And I don't.