Microsofters Say They Cannot Find a Job (That They Want) Because of Techrights, But Techrights Merely Reported on Their Behaviour

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Apr 19, 2025

Quit pointing the finger at people who are recipients of abuse or merely mention the abuse

The term "shoot the messenger" (there are derivatives of it, a slight alteration of words) can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of journalism it typically means you attack the publication (publisher) and/or author instead of the material published, veracity, accuracy etc. In this context it is related to Latinised "ad hominem" (literal meaning: “to the man”). "From ad hominem to post hoc ergo propter hoc, there is no shortage of pompous Latinised fallacies that you can shout at your friends," James Hill wrote some years ago. It is a short and decent list that includes:

This one is a classic. The argumentum ad verecundiam, or, argument from authority uses the authority of some person as support for the conclusion, even when this authority may have no relevance. For example, people often misquote Einstein or Abraham Lincoln on topics that neither Einstein nor Abraham Lincoln probably ever talked about. One must analyse a claim by its own merits, not those of the people who support it. Using “one” to refer to yourself is necessary here, and in all aspects of logical argument.

You decide to drop out of university, not because Zuckerberg and his success is an authority, but because you really can't be bothered with 9am lectures anymore. Another win for rational thought!

Likewise, just because you studied biology and merely graduated (at second attempt) does not imply you're some guru at security or that you have become some master coder. If the public "portfolio" is so narrow and/or controversial/notorious, expect backlash.

What truly matters is demonstrable, relevant skills and competencies, not some semi-cooked and biased Wikipedia page one wrote about oneself (or paid others to edit after serial strangling of women by one's "best friend"). To some, Wikipedia became ad space or classifieds (cheaper than "Reputation Management" by SLAPP).

Sometimes people's own behaviour is their Achilles heel, but they try to blame those who merely explain that behaviour, even with direct quotes and full context.

As our lawyer put it some months ago in another context: "They argue that as a public figure who regularly engages in contentious debates, Hijab’s reputation is already subject to scrutiny. Any “adverse consequences” to the YouTuber stem from his own behaviour, not the article, they state."

Exactly!

Also, if you strangle women, blame yourself, not the person who merely mentioned it. What is Microsoft's stance on this matter? Why did Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman (GitHub's CEO at the time) suddenly leave when we started reporting on it? Because they're his close friends and have been for ages?

We still have a lot of material to cover in great abundance when the time is best and consensual aspects more attainable/suitable (not just fully permissible). Just because some Americans from Microsoft hired a poor "gun for hire" doesn't mean they get to censor those whom they attacked [1, 2]. It was a very stupid idea all along; shades of EPO. This is what happens when there's no filtering of clients for credibility/merit. You end up holding "a bag". █