I think HR departments just want to offload risk and they'll take advantage of loose labor laws to offload an employee who got mobbed online.
I don't ascribe a right or left bias to them. It's the mob that has the bias (perhaps because of age or ideology or certainty or something else) and the mob uses the technology and then the HR department responds by firing the employee.
> the mob uses the technology and then the HR department responds by firing the employee.
Do we need to coin the term "DDoE"? Distributed Denial of Employment. It's a hack against the socio-political system that targets find themselves in, not too dissimilar to Swatting.
Definitely, didn't mean to ascribe it to one side or the other. I mainly see posters on HN referencing instances of "the left" getting people fired.
It has more to do with aggregate action, which has recently been made possible with platforms like Twitter, than with the particular ideological stances.
My personal experience is a lot of HR departments do have a left-of-center bias to them, especially at the lower-levels (but at times reaching all the way to the top). A few reasons:
1) HR departments tend to skew female, and women on average skew somewhat more left-of-center than men do
2) They often have special teams for "diversity & inclusion", which inevitably tend to be filled with people with left-of-center political views
3) They'll put requirements like "commitment to diversity & inclusion" in job descriptions, which can (ironically) act as a filter to remove political diversity. Those phrases can get copy-and-pasted into job descriptions in other departments too, but while for many in engineering/sales/etc it is just compliance boilerplate with little real significance to the hiring process, HR really means it.
Of course this isn't universally true, I'm sure there are some HR departments out there full of Trump supporters. But most of the people here would not be working for those kinds of companies.
Who knows, maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those ideals are being taken seriously, and more importantly that they also follow through in confirming the allegations (they often seem not to), and just are worried about their branding when a perceived 'toxic' person is associated with their brand. Companies generally worry about revenue more than they worry about ideals, no matter what is claimed. I'm not saying that cynically, either, I think that's what investors and boardmembers care about and for obvious reason.
I don't ascribe a right or left bias to them. It's the mob that has the bias (perhaps because of age or ideology or certainty or something else) and the mob uses the technology and then the HR department responds by firing the employee.