News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative blog post about it.

Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by us0r on Friday July 22, 2016 @06:03PM (#12147100)
Here is the post:

https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-dive-into-weworks-user-...

http://archive.is/ou72L

Don't forget they are also suing an employee for talking to reporters:

http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-is-suing-an-ex-employe...

I'd say this is a pretty clear case of where there's smoke.....

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by kafkaesq on Friday July 22, 2016 @08:16PM (#12147693)
They're suing an employee for (alleged) theft of proprietary documents, obtained through using the credentials of another employee. Not for "talking to reporters."

This is a pretty clear case of where there's smoke...

There's innuendo and hyperbole.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by wpietri on Friday July 22, 2016 @09:14PM (#12147886)
You're confusing motivation with legal cause of action. Yes, the suit talks about alleged document theft. But Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit.

If WeWork decided to look for a reason to sue a former employee who made them look bad in the press, they would hardly be the first. But exactly none of those suits will say so, because that suit won't get far at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by kafkaesq on Saturday July 23, 2016 @12:02PM (#12149868)
But Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit.

Yeah, I got the part about WeWork's "intent" already and wasn't "confused" by it, as you so kindly suggest. My point is he's using manipulative language to get his point across, which I find distasteful.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by wpietri on Saturday July 23, 2016 @04:59PM (#12150984)
I'm not saying you misunderstood; I couldn't know that. I'm saying that in your reply you muddled them. When you say "it is A, not B", you're suggesting that one excludes the other. That's not the case; they're different things.

If you don't like his language, I'd suggest you critique the language instead of contradicting him on a point of analysis.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by kafkaesq on Saturday July 23, 2016 @06:09PM (#12151195)
Look, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was more critique-worth is beside the point.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by wpietri on Sunday July 24, 2016 @08:18PM (#12155677)
I wasn't confused by it. The lawsuit was mentioned as "for document theft" in the article. I thought he was clearly adding his interpretation of motive. Maybe it's just you?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by kafkaesq on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @03:41PM (#12168247)
To me it reads as spin, not simply "interpretation."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by eridius on Friday July 22, 2016 @06:17PM (#12147168)
It's not suing an employee for talking to reporters. That doesn't make sense. It's suing an employee for stealing confidential information.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by mikeryan on Friday July 22, 2016 @06:34PM (#12147253)
It's not suing an employee for talking to reporters. That doesn't make sense.

Most company exits include an NDA clause which would prevent talking to reporters so the statement does make sense. Except you're totally right thats not what she's really being sued for.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by falcolas on Friday July 22, 2016 @06:38PM (#12147278)
Such clauses only come into effect if you take the severance package. So, while you can say it's likely the employee was under a non-disparagement agreement, it's not a certainty.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by bdcravens on Friday July 22, 2016 @10:40PM (#12148100)
Generally NDA refers to non-disclosure, not non-disparagement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by falcolas on Saturday July 23, 2016 @10:17AM (#12149511)
Yes, but it's also generally a non-disparagement which would stop former employees from speaking negatively about their former company to the press.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by jasonlotito on Friday July 22, 2016 @06:11PM (#12147132)
Where do they provide a way to replicate their findings?
[ Parent | on HN ]