![[object Object]](https://media.mas.to/accounts/avatars/109/287/758/133/964/366/original/0f3099c0adfb36a0.png "[object Object]")
part 2 of that last one. “you’re making a mountain out of a molehill” / “show me where I accused you of being irrational” is a pattern some may recognize on a personal level
2 media
Discussion
Loading...
that unfortunately brings us to the danger. here’s the bits of that earlier thread that didn’t fit in the screenshots.
while the quoted post isn’t one I’d make personally, I’d like to point out something important: it’s directed towards an account that represents Mozilla, a billion-dollar grift-shaped nonprofit. Jake isn’t tagged or mentioned anywhere near that post.
Jake has turned a crass piece of corporate feedback into a personal attack.
3 media
@zzt watching the originating thread and watching Jake act *exactly* like my abusive ex in arguments is all the proof I need that Firefox should be put in the trash
Christ almighty, this is the guy they want talking for them?
@mxjaygrant @zzt elsewhere earlier, I remarked this as an impression of some of their posts..
and then ever not so long later when things were (quite lightly (but irrevocably)) highlighted...
here’s the quoted post in context. while again it’s not something I would post, I will not be the one to tone police the feedback directed towards a billion-dollar company that is, in fact, fucking us over while pretending to represent us.
if your response to this is that the rape comparison should never have been made, please consider the amount of power Jake has in this interaction.
because Jake didn’t like the form of the feedback directed towards an official account, he decided to frivolously associate that other poster with a false rape accusation. if that other poster’s account is associated with their real name or their work, they now have this accusation associated with their identity.
this is a fucking gross, dangerous thing to do in response to what is, in reality, a garden variety piece of angry feedback.
also disgusting is how Jake frames the accusation. he left an emoji in so he could claim it was a joke, but it was posted in a context where a joke isn’t appropriate. the other poster isn’t Jake’s friend. the “pretty grim” follow-up, “I’m not going to debate this further”, and blocking the original poster make it pretty clear it wasn’t tongue in cheek at all.
Jake was hoping to shape drama. unfortunately for him, we can read.
in brief, please do not interact with Jake or the mozilla dev account if you may suffer reputation or career damage as a result. anything you post directed towards Mozilla as a company will be framed as a personal attack on a Mozilla employee. please consider the amount of power their company’s money and position affords them. as you can read in the full thread, even relatively innocuous posts will be framed in the worst light possible if Jake disagrees with you.
@zzt it feels like the sea lion cartoon, except before the first panel the sea lion said disagreeable stuff in front of the carriage directed at the passengers, while it was wearing a Firefox polo shirt.
*Any* expression of dissent against the individual, *or the company* is then taken personally, called unreasonable, chased down, their own statements always above reproach and able to be moulded to be serious or sardonic as suits their DARVO tactics.
Gah, it makes me angry just thinking about.
Thank you for highlighting all this.
Not sure if you saw the “opt-in means different things to different people” post. Honestly, they can just go bite a fat one!
@europlus oh the posts where they try to debate the definition of opt-in are memorably terrible. opt-in is a form of affirmative consent, and they think they can debate it away. it’s gross.