I'm sorry to hear about this. The mid-2010s were a dangerous time to be entering Silicon Valley or technology. The important roles were already taken, so there weren't any real opportunities except in crypto (disreputable even by Silicon Valley standards) and the turn toward authoritarianism was subtle but still present enough that, if you left and tried to speak out, you could easily be attacked as not really principled, but simply lashing out because you weren't successful.

This was, and probably still is, the standard anti-whistleblower playbook:

1. He's just lashing out because he was unsuccessful. (That is, claim moral equivalence. He would do the same things if he had won.)

2. He might have a point, but he's being egotistical and making it all about him. (Most whistleblowers are neurodivergent have a history of interpersonal conflict that is usually not damning, but can be dredged up. Now the conversation is all about him, and not in his favor.)

3. Sure, he does have a point, but his tone is shrill and his approach is off-putting. He's actually damaging his own cause by "acting out" and refusing to use official channels. (Never mind that "official channels" are always controlled assets. We are condemning him for not giving us advance notice.)

It's ugly, ugly work. I probably didn't cause any harm to anyone that wasn't already in the works, and maybe I couldn't have prevented any, but I wish I had done it all differently.