On the one hand my untutored sense is that California courts will broadly read Cal Lab §96(k) in favor of employees, but on the other I fucking love watching Wish dot com Iron Man and Crypto Rasputin fighting it out over their rapidly collapsing ex-Twitter equity stakes.
Curious about this one because I generally agree people should not be fired for what they post anonymously. HOWEVER, you know "did not conform to prevailing political orthodoxy" is doing some extremely heavy lifting there.
The note doesn’t mention if she had an X account under her actual name, but curiously also doesn’t rule it out. Just struck as odd. Course, not knowing why she was fired or how they found her cramps our style a bit.
i have no idea who this person is but like three tweets down on their timeline is a 2-hour interview they did with someone with "ubermensch" in their handle
Oh, and yet another case of Elon not understanding what the First Amendment means.
A company can fire someone for speech it doesn't want to be associated with.
Sorry, bluechecks. Your payouts are on hold pending results of this lawsuit. Your ad rev split and premiums are being put toward the legal costs currently. Thanks for your support in this battle you have nothing to do with or gain from!
Musk is the guy who fired people for telling him his Tweets were unpopular not due to a shadowy conspiracy, but because people thought they sucked, right?
Given her username I'm assuming she was a Bronze Age Pervert fan? i.e. just pure, unadulterated fascism.
The Claremont Institute and basically any Young Republicans group are full of his fans though, I'm sure she'll easily find something with them.
I thought Musk was against anonymous accounts. Didn’t he say he wanted everyone to be accountable?
He’s following Trump’s playbook by suing as much as possible.
