> Sharing private messages without consent is a breach of trust that can also lead to unintended harm,
And if anyone knows breach of trust, it's Matt. Good to know they called in an expert on how to destroy trust. (Pardon the sarcasm, but it's also fairly true.)
That aside, this sounds naive. It's the internet, nothing is private. Anyone who assumes that what's said in DMs stays in DMs, is foolish, at best. If nothing else, devices get lost, systems get hacked. We're not all in Vegas.
Most importantly, the social protocol is already well established:
"Can we talk? Off the record?"
That's it. If you get a yes, how open the conversation is from there is a function of the relationship. But you don't just barrel in and assume. You ask for permission before it starts, and that sets expectations. You. Don't. Assume.
Unfortunately this is simply another contortion by Matt to control the narrative, control the Kool-Aid. It's damage control packaged as benevolence. Funny, but sad.
Three foundational side notes to add:
- Trust is earned. Full stop. If it's not earned, it's not trust.
- Once lost, earning trust back takes 10x - sometimes 100x - the original effort. Sometimes even at 100x it's not regranted.
- Legitimate leaders know how trust works. Tyrants think it's something they can regulate and legislate. Tyrants demand trust. Leaders earn it, and work relentlessly too keep earning it.
Matt - I hope all this helps. But it looks like you're not done with your rampage of "cleansing the community" of anyone willing to question you. I guess you missed the directive:
And if anyone knows breach of trust, it's Matt. Good to know they called in an expert on how to destroy trust. (Pardon the sarcasm, but it's also fairly true.)
That aside, this sounds naive. It's the internet, nothing is private. Anyone who assumes that what's said in DMs stays in DMs, is foolish, at best. If nothing else, devices get lost, systems get hacked. We're not all in Vegas.
Most importantly, the social protocol is already well established:
"Can we talk? Off the record?"
That's it. If you get a yes, how open the conversation is from there is a function of the relationship. But you don't just barrel in and assume. You ask for permission before it starts, and that sets expectations. You. Don't. Assume.
Unfortunately this is simply another contortion by Matt to control the narrative, control the Kool-Aid. It's damage control packaged as benevolence. Funny, but sad.
Three foundational side notes to add:
- Trust is earned. Full stop. If it's not earned, it's not trust.
- Once lost, earning trust back takes 10x - sometimes 100x - the original effort. Sometimes even at 100x it's not regranted.
- Legitimate leaders know how trust works. Tyrants think it's something they can regulate and legislate. Tyrants demand trust. Leaders earn it, and work relentlessly too keep earning it.
Matt - I hope all this helps. But it looks like you're not done with your rampage of "cleansing the community" of anyone willing to question you. I guess you missed the directive:
"Learn leadership deeply."