zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
It's fascinating to me the extent to which executives don't consider themselves "public figures" when it comes to potential downsides, but they do in terms of upsides.

It feels so obvious to me that the CEO of such a high-profile org should at the very least quickly check public-facing social media posts against someone sensible, if not laundering them all through the experts at their org. But somehow they keep making these mistakes over and over again.

>>BobaFl+84
The battlecry of the executive: "Rules for thee but none for me"

>>bloope+G5
Isn't it the reverse though? If a not notable person tweeted this stuff, it would have blown over and no one would have cared. But since he is notable it becomes a story

I think that was the point of the parents "public figures" comment

>>bko+W6
> Isn't it the reverse though? If a not notable person tweeted this stuff, it would have blown over and no one would have cared. But since he is notable it becomes a story

This is not borne out by historical events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham...