[ok_computer]

The sentiment is totally ok to think and feel. But it makes you look like an insecure loser to blast the entire directory with you latest grievance.

If you want to project power as a ceo you have the communication task delegated to someone who specializes in company communications and information security.

[dzikimarian]

Honestly I cannot express how much I don't understand this idea.

He has some extremely important message to pass to entire company (failed projects due to lost trust in mobile sector can easily shake company).

Why on earth delegate that and have yet another canned corporate email that will be forgotten 20 minutes later? You can always run content by someone experienced if you want to round up the edges, but if you have something to say to people usually it's best to just say it.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Agree 100%. When I read this sentence "If you want to project power as a ceo you have the communication task delegated to someone who specializes in company communications and information security" I literally had to read it like three times because it seemed so obviously backwards to me I thought I must be missing a negative somewhere.

I hear on HN 99% of the time how folks don't like corporate speak and that they wish leaders were more forthcoming and honest, and here someone is arguing that they just want the corporate-speak version of it. It is completely baffling to me.

[crazygringo]

I don't know.

Corporate leaks are pretty serious, and maintaining a culture of no leaks is a CEO-level priority.

Handling these at the CEO level feels far more appropriate and effective than delegating it to a security specialist nobody's heard of before and whose e-mail will mostly just be ignored.

I don't see "insecure loser" at all, I see a CEO acting correctly to nip a problem in the bud.

Except for the "please resign" subject line which is a bit hyperbolic.

[Nullabillity]

Corporations aren't people and don't (or shouldn't, anyway) have privacy rights.

[crazygringo]

None of this has anything to do with privacy rights.

This is private enforcement of secrets with employees. If you leak company secrets, your in opposition to what you were hired for, and you get fired.

Nobody's arguing the journalist who published the story shouldn't have been legally permitted to.

[yunohn]

Privacy? I’m not sure what you think that means in this context.

[corbulo]

If Corporations weren't people you wouldn't be able to sue them. Read more.

[majormajor]

Corporations aren't the only non-individual entity you can sue, and the ability to sue could be extended separately from other person-like rights or responsibilities (see, for instance, that corporations can't vote).

[red-iron-pine]

The government isn't a person, but I can sue them.

Hell, I could sue companies before the supreme court determined they're people for election campaign fund purposes.

[underwater]

I was at Facebook shortly after this. Zuck was very present in internal comms, regularly posting on the internal Facebook and holding a weekly Q&A. To me it felt transparent and authentic, and I felt aligned with company strategy.

This email was famous, the clickbait subject gave some people a fright, but overwhelmingly people were strongly aligned with the sentiment and spoke about it in a positive way.

Now at another big tech co and I hear from my CEO and CVPs via mainstream news instead of internal channels. I feel very little connection to the culture and have no idea what our strategic direction is.

[ghaff]

Yeah. The head of corporate comms or someone in that chain of command would be very justified in sending something along of the lines of:

This was shared externally from our internal company meeting. I'd like to remind everyone that keeping the information shared in these meetings confidential allows us to be more open with all our employees. etc.

There may be times for the CEO to send the message but, especially at a high visibility company, it's probably inevitable it will become more of a personal thing.

[disgruntledphd2]

Facebook was a much, much, much smaller (like 30-60x) smaller company back then.

[ghaff]

Facebook was still a big company in 2010.

(But I agree that this sort of communication, if not its exact wording, is more appropriate at a smaller company.)

[disgruntledphd2]

Sure, according to Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-faceboo...) they had 2k employees in 2010.

They now have 70k, so they were 3% of the size back then.

I stand by my point.

[ipaddr]

68k extra employees and facebook of 2010 was better than today.

[underwater]

No decent mobile app, no groups, no Messenger, no Instagram, no WhatsApp, no real advertising product. It isn't 35x better, but there is no way the product offering is worse.

The Facebook experience feels worse, but that's because the novelty wore off and people don't share anywhere as much as they did back in the heyday.

[ghaff]

Fair enough. I didn't realize they were that relatively small. So I guess my objection is mostly with some of the wording.