I think it was clear the person you're replying to is saying that the repercussions for being critical toward your employer is what makes it effectively 'not allowed'.

> They choose to employ us and can replace us.

It's really a mutual agreement, innit? The relative power in the situation is merely a supply / demand equation, for talent / jobs.

> No one is saying you can't be critical of your own employer. They are saying there are repercussions to being critical and loss of employment is a common one which should be expected.

Why do you feel that the expected outcome of being critical is being punished instead of addressing the root causes of these issues? I mean how do you expect problems to be pointed out and addressed?

Is the status quo today akin to the story of The Emperor's New Clothes?

>I mean how do you expect problems to be pointed out and addressed?

Apparently, at Twitter, you don't.

> Apparently, at Twitter, you don't.

Twitter is itching to shed people any way they can, so the problem lies elsewhere.

Most companies I have worked for have a means to point out problems in an internal non-public manner. Once you bypass those to go public you generally lose the trust of your employer. Why would you employ someone you can no longer trust?

Why is this dead?

Because some people can't accept there are consequences to actions.