Direct Revenue's New Transparency Means Fewer Employees

from the layoffs dept

Just a week ago we were pointing out that adware maker Direct Revenue’s latest (in a long line) claims that they were no longer being sneaky and underhanded in getting their software installed didn’t hold up under scrutiny. While the company has a new CEO, it still has quite the reputation to live down, including repeatedly changing its name, claiming that “transparency” meant just telling people who was causing all those popups, rather than actually letting them know before the adware was installed, and (the best part) having a removal system that required you to go to their website where more adware was secretly installed and which didn’t really work in getting rid of any adware. So, it should make people around the world happy to hear that the company has laid off 40 employees — though no details (or a source) are given for the news.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Direct Revenue's New Transparency Means Fewer Employees”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
6 Comments
Sean (user link) says:

Re: Re: why

That’s not really the point I was trying to make. While people should be happy about the layoffs because it’s a sign the company is going under, the article makes it sound like we should be happy because people are loosing their jobs.
I still don’t blame the coders, because sometimes feeding your family takes precedence over your own ethics.
– Sean

"The Friend" says:

There is a source for the story

Nobody should be happy about a company laying off half of its employees.

I am a company insider, still with a job. And just want to say that Rebecca Lieb’s story that she posted on her blog is 100% accurate. She protected the name of her source as not to cause any additional harm, and so that person could continue to keep their job.

Should she have “outted” the source, and effectively caused them to lose their job in addition to the others? I think not.

Why are unnamed sources ok for political stories in the New York Times but not for ClickZ??

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...