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.
Comments on “Direct Revenue's New Transparency Means Fewer Employees”
Why would that make me feel good? The 40 employees where more than likely you average run of the mill type employees like secretaries, janitors, clerks, and coders. Those sorts of employees don’t have any impact on the decisions the company makes, and now their out of a job.
The coders certainly have an impact on those decisions. They wrote the code that is responsible for the behavior of the program. They are the ones that caused it.
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.
Re: Re: Re: why
I can be a few steps higher then their ethics and be happy about those layoffs.
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??
Re: There is a source for the story
Let me say this about that…Direct Revenue employees are taking money from ignorant people that
are more than willing to shell out the cash to remove there software at tech centers. DR capalized on others stupidity.