Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by LinuxBender 1080 days ago
I don't know the answer and can't speak for anyone else but I personally would not want to take on that risk. Every company that feels harmed by comments would be and endless flood of baseless lawsuits I think. Winning or losing the court battles would not even matter, it would just mean keeping a massive legal staff employed full time.

I could envision someone setting up forums on the darkweb to discuss the pros and cons of companies to mitigate some attribution but I do not see how anyone could make money unless they play ball with the big companies which renders the site pointless much like glassdoor as become. The money made would be from bribes from shady companies and then bigger companies might take the money away. Prior to GD was f'd company and I don't remember why they went away.
2 comments
dotcoma 1080 days ago
Well, FuckedCompany.com was mostly created to make fun of the stupid dotcoms and their implosion, much like Molly White's web3isgoinggreat.com
link
LinuxBender 1080 days ago
mostly created to make fun of the stupid dotcoms

It did start that way but they had forums where we could talk about all the shenanigans going on without being censored. AFAIK this is not really the same on GlassDoor as they censor comments or at least I've seen multiple people stating their posts were censored.

Perfect username to reply to this btw

link
dotcoma 1080 days ago
Yeah, sure there were forums and back Pud certainly did not censor anybody.

But it was not really a business, that's what I meant. It was done for fun, and so that Pud could make a name for himself.

And later write a book!

My username: thanks. I was a great fan of Pud.

I even wrote the Italian 'version' of F'd Companies https://www.dotcoma.it/book

link
LinuxBender 1080 days ago
But it was not really a business, that's what I meant. It was done for fun, and so that Pud could make a name for himself.

That totally makes sense. Being just a forum and just for fun is less of a legal target I think, at least back then. That's cool you wrote a book about it, I had no idea.

Nowadays probably the only way to do this without censorship or taking bribes to promote or censor would be on a .onion site I think and it would probably get DDoS'd into oblivion.

link
4hEn 1080 days ago
> I do not see how anyone could make money unless they play ball with the big companies

One way is to play ball with the candidates. A big casualty of the job search is the candidate because they deplete their savings while looking for a job. Companies on the other hand can afford to not spend the money on a hire, or delay hiring, or put job postings that aren't really hiring to keep up pretenses or as marketing or feel they're not losing anything. The candidate doesn't have a concentrated force to counteract this.

If candidates wised up it could get interesting. A web app that is the other half of LinkedIn could be there waiting to be discovered.

link
thaeli 1080 days ago
The concentrated force for candidates to counteract this would be an industy-wide union. Which isn't happening.. but if you look at unionized industries this is one of the major benefits for candidates, or at least for candidates who make it into the union..
link
4hEn 1079 days ago
> The concentrated force for candidates to counteract this would be an industy-wide union. Which isn't happening.

It's one force, not "the" force. As described in the other comment, having enough data about which employers are actually hiring could go a long way.

link