[horseface]

she did not destroy anyone's career; he made an off color comment at a tech conference, someone reported that he did so, and his employer made a decision to fire him because of how it reflected on their company. had he not said it, she'd have nothing to report; had his employer not agreed that it was inconsistent with the public image they wish to present, they would not have fired him.

[nilkn]

If you're going to base your whole argument just on the actions of the companies involved, I think you'll run into a pickle when you incorporate the fact that she was just fired herself over her actions.

Back up your opinion with self-sufficient evidence and justification. It does not suffice to just point at what others have done.

[timv]

> she was just fired herself over her actions.

Do you actually know what she was fired over? All I've seen in a statement that her employment was terminated.

For all I know the situation went like this:

SendGrid: We think you handled this situation badly, and since you were there as a SendGrid employee, that reflects badly on the company. We'd like you to make a public apology about they way in which you dealt with it. Adria: No SG: We're not asking Adria: But I'm not doing it SG: Then we don't think you can continue working here.

Which is to say, she may have been terminated because of how she handled the situation within SendGrid, rather than what she did at the Con. Or maybe not. I don't think we've been given enough information to know & nor are we ever likely to unless Adria posts it.

Edit: I've just read the more detailed blog post (http://blog.sendgrid.com/a-difficult-situation/) and it seems your interpretation is right.

[jluster]

Actually, not quite factually true. She did not "report" it. She used her significant media presence to shame someone with vague allusions. The right thing to do would have been for his company to get his side of the story (which we see above) and make a public statement, not to fire him over pitchforks and torches at the gates.