Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

32
  • 128
    Makoto - I don't know Sara. For me, she is merely a (high-level?) official of SE Inc. Regardless of whether or not there's a policy - it is faux pas to smear people and groups to which she is supposed to be committed, in public, that way. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:04
  • 7
    Then again after the previous Twitter fiasco(s) I think it would be fair to assume that a CM knows what the impact of public actions, especially ones on Twitter, can and will be. And would thus act with more care. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:05
  • 14
    no one is saying that Ms Chipps isn't allowed to...just that doing this considering her role in SE isn't what would be expected Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:06
  • 98
    Bad behavior that doesn't break any rules is still bad behavior. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:06
  • 3
    @einpoklum: It obviously is. But there's no remedy that we can point to anywhere to see it "undone". Effectively you have someone using social media in a manner we disagree with. We can't do anything about that. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:06
  • 9
    well...we can express how their actions are affecting a part of this community Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:07
  • 14
    @Makoto, yes, but SE Inc probably can, if they want to. People get fired for their personal social media posts all the time, even ones unrelated to their job (and this one clearly is related). Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:07
  • 61
    @Makoto: Of course there's a remedy. That tweet should be removed. I would say "and apology issued", but I'm not sure I'd like to hear another one of these apologies. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:08
  • 87
    @Makoto: Whether or not I agree with the position isn't really the issue. It's someone claiming to champion inclusivity and being welcoming, and then immediately and publicly celebrating the exclusion of people whom you don't welcome, that I object to. I'd like to think that shameless and unapologetic hypocrisy could quite comfortably be placed into the "bad" bucket regardless of one's position on the underlying statements themselves. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:15
  • 7
    I mean, if we are classifying things in "good" or "bad", then hypocritical is clearly "bad" Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:20
  • 3
    I don't believe that a retweet of that position was tasteful in the slightest. Indeed. @rene is correct, this is a sensible and useful answer. Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 20:32
  • 21
    The fact that 'there's no documented social media policy', is not an adequate excuse. That position supports people and corporations being, at best, disingenuous, at worst, evil. Surely 'be nice' is always the guiding principles in the absence of something more specific. The 'no documented policy' excuse could be used to defend all novel and aberrant behaviour. IMHO Humans have some social sensitivity and grasp of responsibility. We don't need documents to recognise 'bad' behaviour. Requiring documents to define what is allowable is retrograde & unnecessary when 'be nice' is enough Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 21:38
  • 2
    @frisbee-horde: You can totally say one thing and do another. It's called "being hypocritical". That seems to be the root of the complaint here. The remedy everyone is calling for - either an apology, a move to remove the retweet, or anything along those lines - isn't really likely going to happen because no one defined the parameters under which this behavior was or was not acceptable. You can't be penalized for something if there's no penalty. Maybe a lack of trust or an erosion of standing is penalty enough, but something tells me that's not really a factor here. Commented Oct 13, 2019 at 22:47
  • 64
    if she needs a written rule to tell her what she did was inappropriate and poor judgement as best, given her position, she probably is not qualified to be making judgments on others decision making in similar subjects and if you need a written rule to hold her accountable you are just an apologist for her. she has a what is supposed to be a respected professional role holding her to respectful professional conduct when in that role is not unexpected Commented Oct 19, 2019 at 16:38
  • 2
    @Lundin: if there was, we wouldn't have the meme "Twitter-oriented development", would we? Commented Oct 24, 2019 at 13:26