I don't know the guy or his circumstances,but as someone who's been aggrieved by a former employer/manager, I can think of at least one reason he may want to stir up a raucous.
It doesn't sound like he's lying, but nothing he's said sounds particularly egregious - relative to practices at other American tech companies and startups. The worst he could be accused of may be exaggeration or having standards that far exceed common practice.
Then I'm sorry, but your comment is malinformed.
1) this being common practice doesn't make it right
2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions.
But that just makes Twitter normal - that doesn't deserve congressional hearings, or whistleblowing IMO. Doctor's only briefly talk to patients before moving on, and depend a lot on the file: I don't think that is right - but that's what the American standard of care seems to have settled on. If I were to sue a doctor for malpractice, alleging they'd have made a more accurate diagnosis by spending more time with me, a valid defense for them would be to show that they followed standard practice.
> 2) knowing someone's background, and deeply studying their historical writings, can provide a lot of color when evaluating someone's ethics, or any bias in their actions.
I learned from the New Yorker article that Mudge signed an 7- or 8-million dollar agreement with Twitter earlier this year that had a carve-out in its non-disparagement clause(s) for whistleblowing
That definitely "adds color"