←back to thread

199 points orangeteacups | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lapcat ◴[] No.41872346[source]
> In July, before the latest WP Engine blowup, an Automattic employee wrote in Slack that they received a direct message from Mullenweg sending them an identification code for Blind, an anonymous workplace discussion platform, which was required to complete registration on the site. Blind requires employees to use their official workplace emails to sign up, as a way to authenticate that users actually work for the companies they are discussing. Mullenweg said on Slack that emails sent from Blind’s platform to employees’ email addresses were being forwarded to him. If employees wanted to log in or sign up for Blind, they’d need to ask Mullenweg for the two-factor identification code. The implication was that Automattic—and Mullenweg—could see who was trying to sign up for Blind, which is often a place where people anonymously vent or share criticism about their workplace.

> “We were unaware that Matt redirected sign-up emails until current Automattic employees contacted our support team,” a spokesperson for Blind told me, adding that they’d “never seen a CEO or executive try to limit their employees from signing up for Blind by redirecting emails.”

replies(4): >>41872397 #>>41872717 #>>41873208 #>>41873512 #
orev ◴[] No.41872717[source]
> never seen a CEO or executive try to limit their employees from signing up for Blind by redirecting emails

I get that it’s creepy that this is being done, but I highly doubt that nobody at Blind has “never seen” this. Blind sends spam using multiple different domain names trying to get people to sign up. The domains are rotated so they can get around blocking on the email server, and the fact they do it means they already know that companies try to block them.

replies(2): >>41872951 #>>41874276 #
qgin ◴[] No.41872951[source]
Blocking, sure. But literally sending the emails to the CEO might very well be a new one.
replies(1): >>41873287 #
rwmj ◴[] No.41873287[source]
There are loads of terrible companies around, so I'd be surprised if none of them had ever tried to intercept Blind sign-up messages before now, and if you're a tyrant CEO at one of said terrible companies, getting the emails forwarded to you is merely the next logical step.

The next paragraph in the text is a lot more interesting:

Some of the most commonly discussed topics on Blind are protected speech in the U.S.—pay, job terminations, critiques of workplace conditions—which we believe workers should be free to access and discuss.

What are the consequences (in the US) of a company blocking that?

replies(1): >>41873411 #
0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.41873411[source]
Zero. Protected speech is protected from government intervention. You can run your own forum that bans people from discussing <thing you hate> without repercussions.
replies(1): >>41873477 #
ceejayoz ◴[] No.41873477[source]
Eh, discussing salary is a right, guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.
replies(3): >>41873523 #>>41873535 #>>41873616 #
Alupis ◴[] No.41873616[source]
Discussing salary using company property (your provided email address and provided computer) on company time is not guaranteed nor protected.

You can discuss anything you want on your time using your own property.

replies(3): >>41873740 #>>41873767 #>>41873795 #
ceejayoz ◴[] No.41873795[source]
That's entirely false.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...

> You may have discussions about wages when not at work, when you are on break, and even during work if employees are permitted to have other non-work conversations. You have these rights whether or not you are represented by a union.

replies(1): >>41873947 #
1. Alupis ◴[] No.41873947{3}[source]
That's entirely false.

> > You may have discussions about wages when not at work, when you are on break, and even during work if employees are permitted to have other non-work conversations. You have these rights whether or not you are represented by a union.

So which employer expressly allows you to use company time and property to do non-company things? Oh, right... none.

So you clocking into work (figuratively or literally), logging into you company computer, browsing to a non-work-related website and gabbing all day is not protected.

replies(1): >>41873990 #
2. ceejayoz ◴[] No.41873990[source]
> So which employer expressly allows you to use company time and property to do non-company things? Oh, right... none.

Virtually all companies permit non-disruptive non-work discussions during the work day. "How was your weekend?", for example. Unless you're something like a voice actor, they can even usually occur while you work.

replies(1): >>41874054 #
3. Alupis ◴[] No.41874054[source]
"How was your weekend" is not the same as spending a couple hours on a non-work related website.

This is not a union/organization issue. This is a very simple case of employees goofing off on the clock and being surprised the company found out about it.

There wouldn't even be an article about this had any of this occurred after hours or on breaks. The fact that breaks aren't even part of the discussion tells you without ambiguity these people were stealing company time, money and resources instead of doing the thing they were hired to do.

replies(1): >>41874078 #
4. ceejayoz ◴[] No.41874078{3}[source]
> "How was your weekend" is not the same as spending a couple hours on a non-work related website.

If it takes you "a couple hours" to complete https://www.teamblind.com/sign-up, that's on you.

> There wouldn't even be an article about this had any of this occurred after hours or on breaks.

You can't just make shit up to win an argument; there's absolutely no way of telling whether or not these emails were generated during breaks. All we know is Matt intercepted them. They could've signed up outside of work hours, during breaks, on vacation, etc. and Matt would still have been receiving them.

If it's anything like most other tech companies, breaks aren't even formal, let alone tracked/timestamped.