[geon]

Companies really need do be less uptight and more grown up about the web. People share their opinions all the time, even gasp on the web. Get over it.

I recall that MS employees can blog at microsofts domain, but there is a disclaimer that opinions expressed in blog posts not necessarily reflect the policies of MS. That is a more suitable way to handle things.

Twitter isn't even connected to MS. Seriously.

[mirkules]

Having employees be free of any consequences of what they say on the web (or otherwise) is a bad idea. Do you want your employees telling your customers or competitors what your next product feature is?

Uncontrolled PR is an all around bad idea, and it's why many companies explicitly forbid saying anything about the company.

[geon]

Obviously, keeping company secrests is important. That goes without saying. But that wasn't what happened, was it? An employee expressed his personal prefeerence for a technology that may, or may not be part of the netx gen consoles. (And everyone have been anticipatin this for years anyway.)

[yuhong]

Well, I have said before about secrecy that "neither extreme is a good idea": http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1185168...

[commandar]

There's a difference between expressing opinions and insulting customers. That's what got him in trouble.

[geon]

Hopefully what you say is true. It is not what the article described.

[illuminate]

"Companies really need do be less uptight and more grown up about the web."

Companies taking responsibility for the actions of their employees is far more grownup than whatever you're suggesting.

"Twitter isn't even connected to MS. Seriously."

What a meaningless statement.

[geon]

> Companies taking responsibility for the actions of their employees is far more grownup than whatever you're suggesting.

Agreed. But firing someone for expressing personal oppinions (if that is what happened, as the article sucgests) isn't "taking responsibility".

> "Twitter isn't even connected to MS. Seriously." > What a meaningless statement.

You missed my point. The article suggests you can't tweet anything without your employee feeling you are representing them. That would be reasonable if you used the company website to communicate, but the person in the article had used twitter. There is absolutely no reason for a reader to believe he is representing anyone but himself.