Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • 14
    Judging by the upvotes and downvotes, we do consider it our business. The community feels as though they have a certain sort of investment in the company, just like employees and shareholders do.
    – user245382
    Commented Oct 25, 2019 at 23:04
  • 38
    This is absolutely not true in most companies I'm familiar with. Generally there's a policy that employees are not allowed to post on social media about their work, and I imagine if an employee posted your example, SE Inc would indeed have something to say about it. It's still a public statement about their company by an employee of their company, even if it's not on their platform. I'd expect this is especially true for Director level positions.
    – Nate S.
    Commented Oct 25, 2019 at 23:06
  • 4
    @Marco13 Actually more like a veterinarian posting a picture of a feral cat she killed with a bow and arrow. If I had a social media account that I publicly associated with my real name and employer, I would be careful about how my activity might reflect on my employer and impact how my colleagues might view me.
    – ColleenV
    Commented Oct 26, 2019 at 0:26
  • 22
    @ColleenV Sure - beyond that, she is not "just some employee". When someone working at starbucks tweets "Starbucks sucks", then (one might still be fired - they're dispensable but) one could argue that this is just one worthless opinion that doesn't matter. But I'm pretty sure that, as "director of public Q/A" it is part of the job to not mess up and to not alienate the community like that (even though I don't know what a "director of..." is doing for 8 hours per day, and could imagine that some "directors" might have a hard time answering that question - that's a different issue)
    – Marco13
    Commented Oct 26, 2019 at 1:11
  • 8
    "What someone does on their personal social media has no direct relevance" <- The USA has a president who would beg to differ :-( More seriously though - I could have accepted your answer if it had been some arbitrary employee, not the "Director of Public Q&A".
    – einpoklum
    Commented Oct 26, 2019 at 8:55
  • 3
    "We care about their contribution to the network, not about their private character" is suuuuuuch an ironic line when discussing the removal of someone based on (alleged) private character traits divorced from any contribution to the network!
    – Y     e     z
    Commented Nov 4, 2019 at 15:48
  • 1
    @Y e z Added a paragraph addressing that. (It boils down to "The existence of jerks doesn't mean we should be jerks too.")
    – Leopold says Reinstate Monica
    Commented Nov 5, 2019 at 5:35
  • 20
    Do we really want to contribute to a world where everyone must be in customer service mode 24/7? no... but that's not the issue here. A director of X appearing to privately hate X rightly raises fundamental questions about fitness for the job.
    – Pekka
    Commented Nov 5, 2019 at 7:50
  • 1
    Things posted on twitter have led to changes the bypass the community on SE in the past, so I suppose it is effectively an extension of it now.
    – James
    Commented Jan 7, 2020 at 13:18
  • "What someone does on their personal social media has no direct relevance to Stack Exchange." For users, yes. Site staff should be held to a higher standard, because they are the actual representatives. Just like how when Linus Torvalds expresses an opinion on code style, that carries weight that opinions of arbitrary Linux users do not.
    – Karl Knechtel
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 14:41