The drama:
Some indian company made a “Anonymous survey” asking about a employee’s stress level.
Then they fired all employees who had a certain rating, even though it was “anonymous”.
The news article: https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/startup-asks-employees-if-they-are-stressed-and-then-fires-them-leaked-letter-goes-viral/articleshow/116129662.cms
I started collecting all the times it happened but gave up after 3 of them.
The only legitimate reason I can think of is that it’s viral marketing. I think they might be on to something.
Interesting because most of the Reddit front page is viral marketing nowadays.
The rules only cover viral marketing when they’re not already paying off reddit.
That’s a good point
The linked article says they could not confirm the genuineness of the email. Is there any confirmation that this is real? I did a bit of searching and several Indian sites are reporting on it, but they all seem to be reporting about the outrageous email going viral, not checking the source.
WTF does reddit suffer from leaving this story up?
Maybe it’s taken down on the basis it’s a private email including multiple identifiable names and doxs those involved.
Even the to field is visible with multiple identifiable.
Neither the email nor your article indicates that the survey was anonymous.
Why is this downvoted? If it’s true it’s a valid criticism, and if it’s false, I couldn’t find a mention of anonymity either.
because it’s not valid criticism. no one is complaining about the context of the survey it’s about Reddit suppressing a story on the whims of corporate moderators.
Same thing happened here. People here don’t seem to be actually interested in the truth, or sources. They just want to feed their confirmation bias to feel better about themselves.
Reddit ahh mental gymnastics
They just meant anonymous in the sense that they wouldn’t publish the results on Facebook.
An excellent reminder that “confidential” means “We won’t tell anyone else what you said but can still use it against you.”
Is it just because the company is named?
seems plausible it could be a legal concern about being sued for defamation
I suppose, althought the story is out there, and redacting the company name would be like a bandaid on a dead guy.
