I'm missing why this is news to anyone. Almost any large company will have language like this in their ethics guidelines. Take this random company, for example [1]:<p>> Never give the impression you are speaking on behalf of Biogen Idec in any personal communication, including blogs, social networking sites, chat rooms
or bulletin boards.<p>Others are similar [2][3][4] (search for "behalf of" in the pdfs). This google search will show you dozens of similar documents [5]<p>This is completely normal. What Orth did was something that no employee should ever do, and particularly not someone in his fairly high position.<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.biogenidec.com/Files/Filer/USA/pdfs/Request-Web-COBC.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.biogenidec.com/Files/Filer/USA/pdfs/Request-Web-C...</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://www.demasterblenders1753.com/Global/Attachments_Governance/Code%20of%20conduct.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.demasterblenders1753.com/Global/Attachments_Gover...</a><p>[3]: <a href="http://www.babcock.com/about/ethics/pdf/codeofconduct.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.babcock.com/about/ethics/pdf/codeofconduct.pdf</a><p>[4]: <a href="http://www.k2m.com/en_us/conduct" rel="nofollow">http://www.k2m.com/en_us/conduct</a><p>[5]: <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Unless+authorized%2C+do+not+give+the+impression+that+you+are+speaking+on+behalf+of" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=Unless+authorized%2C+do+not+...</a>
The point this article seems to be missing is, it was his personal opinion about something he was also involved in professionally. He didn't say something unpopular about fly fishing, or jenga, he was stating his opinion about products and services that the public assumes he has a hand in designing. Not only that, but he was fairly abrasive in the way he chose to respond to backlash. Telling people to 'deal with it' just isn't a smart way to go about it when you are (rightly or wrongly) seen as speaking for a company.
"Personal Twitter accounts are dead" is a bit over-the-top.<p>* He didn't make inflammatory comments that were un-related to work. He was directly commenting on a rumoured feature of an upcoming product that he is over seeing.<p>* He made no attempt to distinguish this as a personal Twitter account. On the contrary, he 'prominently' displayed his employer and position.<p>* There's no reason that he couldn't have had a personal Twitter account without identifying information (i.e. pseudo-anonymous).
He's an adult, and an experienced professional, and had been working in the job for a while.<p>Compare his situation with that of Paris Brown. She's 17, employed as a Youth Consultant. Tweets she had written before she got that job, when she was just 14 (maybe 15) were found, and thus there was a pile on calling for her to lose her job.<p>(<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-22070354" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-22070354</a>)<p>Some people supported her. Others didn't.<p>She left her job.<p>(<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22085693" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22085693</a>)<p>Her tweets were really offensive; but kids are stupid and it's a shame we can't let children make mistakes (and then learn from them).<p>I guess people are going to be more careful with their interview process from now on.<p>EDIT: in general I tend to see anything that someone writes as their personal opinion, separate from their employer's position, unless it's a statement from the company on headed paper (or an official account); or unless the person has said "this is what the company says". It's weird to me to link someone's views to their company.
When I joined Microsoft in 2003[1], I was told very clearly to never write anything I wouldn't want to see published on the front page of the New York Times.<p>I feel bad for Adam that he was canned, but <i>he should not have been making news, especially in an inflammatory fashion, about an unannounced Microsoft product.</i><p>[1] I should also mention that I left in 2007
I think in general we have a problem of deifying the concept of free speech (everyone loves the First Amendment), while at the same time we get our kicks censoring everyone whenever we get the chance (while gleefully pointing out the truth that the First Amendment restricts only the government).<p>This is a real problem. I don't think we value free speech as much as we say we do. If we did, we'd tolerate a LOT more before pulling the censorship card.<p><i>That said</i>, canning Orth was a no-brainer. He set himself up as the ultimate anti-evangelist for the next Xbox console. He seriously undermined a product that hasn't been announced yet - this after the announced PS4 details had already positioned Sony as the "good guys".
"You can’t separate your work from your rhetoric these days..."<p>How exactly is this a new thing? We are free to say what we want, it does not mean we are free from the consequences of our statements.
This is sad, but true. You can't ask the public to draw a line between your personal and professional life. A good rule of thumb I was taught that if you wouldn't want to see it on the cover of the New York Times then don't write it!
His comments (note the plural) on Twitter suggest some poor decision making. Who is to say that this wasn't merely the straw that broke the camel's back?
One part of the issue that I haven't seen addressed is the confusion caused by his job title. Much play is made out of "Creative Director" - all this means is that he was <i>A</i> Creative Director, but the story is spun that he was <i>The</i> Creative Director.<p>I have no idea how many "Creative Directors" Microsoft has, or how many in the XBox division, but in general at MS "Director" in your job title usually just means that you are at a level above senior (otherwise known as principal) and (sometimes) are a manager of managers.<p>So among other things, this is collateral damage caused by title inflation.
Companies really need do be less uptight and more grown up about the web. People share their opinions all the time, even <i>gasp</i> on the web. Get over it.<p>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.<p>Twitter isn't even connected to MS. Seriously.
Also, remember what happened to Adria Richards and her explicit mentions of her employment at SendGrid. In both Orth's case and her's, they greatly damaged customer trust for their employer, which resulted in firings.
This seems to be a problem with social media in general. It doesn't encourage us to be our authentic selves but instead forces us to constantly be only who are allowed to be under scrutiny from others (usually strangers) - not the same thing. The fear is that with so much more of our lives getting scrutinized, the project of becoming an individual might become less and less possible.
IMO, the most interesting thing going on here is whether Microsoft will incorporate the backlash against his comments as meaningful product feedback. We don't know if the feature is being seriously considered or not, but if it ends up being included, that'll say a lot about how much MS values those opinions.
Somewhat amusingly, this troll on the debian-user mailing list predicted that Orth would be "fired". Let's see if he starts making commits to Tux Racer :-)<p><a href="https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/04/msg00265.html" rel="nofollow">https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/04/msg00265.html</a>
Well after seeing this [0] and this post [1] from the other guy, I think that while he might have done nothing wrong, he did get a lot of attention, just the wrong kind [2].<p>[0]<a href="http://i.imgur.com/Na2Xkh0.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/Na2Xkh0.png</a><p>[1]<a href="https://twitter.com/manveerheir/status/320064992080691200" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/manveerheir/status/320064992080691200</a><p>[2]theVerge <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/5/4185938/adam-orth-speaks-on-required-internet-connection-for-durango-rumors" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/5/4185938/adam-orth-speaks-on...</a>, Neowin etc,<p>EDIT: removed wrong info about Sony's CEO responding to the original tweet, thanks @maximilianburke
Moral of the story: Don't be honest about your opinions on twitter. Just parrot whatever your current employer wants people to think all of their employees believe.
It's less nefarious than this. If most people read your twitter because you are a friend, then it's a personal account. If most people read your twitter because you work for some company, then your twitter account is not personal. That simple. Know your audience.