u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
It’s really not a mischaracterization. If we discussed tomatoes you’d bring it back to Codesmith. It’s sad man. The fact that you’re constantly bringing it up. I feel bad for you. Sorry man, whatever motivates you is sad. But you be you. Best of luck, we’re not anonymous people a
u/michaelnovati replied · ★ FEATURED
This situation has been presented publicly in a one-sided way that omits material context.
I have been characterized as a competitor who harmed a coding bootcamp. However, months earlier, that bootcamp’s CEO stated to me in writing that she did not consider our companies competitors and that our products were different.
I also raised concerns about security practices and the handling of sensitive personal information. Those concerns required multiple follow-ups, and an audit was discussed. There was later a publicly observable disruption to their AWS access. While I did not cause that disruption; I raised issues related to engineering oversight and security hygiene that were unaddressed flags .
I have been subjected to serious and false accusations, including claims of stalking and other misconduct. My personal email was circulated, and I was subsequently subscribed to unsolicited and inappropriate content (i.e. porn and extreme newsletters). An individual making “stalking” allegation was engaged in public-facing activities, including media appearances and my public comments addressed a potential conflict of interest based solely on publicly available information. Characterizing that as “stalking” is inaccurate and damaging to my reputation.
I spoke directly with Codesmith’s CEO to explain my actions and concerns transparently. Despite that conversation, a blog post was later published with her participation that omitted this context and presented disputed allegations as settled facts.
My comments have been based on observable facts and documented communications, with opinions clearly separated from verifiable information. I participate using a single Reddit account.
Gullible\_Mousse, despite your claims of insider knowledge and your public advice that people should not attend Codesmith, you clearly do not have access to the full context. Making broad public judgments on that basis is unfair and contributes to reputational harm.
Finally, regardless of views on my commentary, Codesmith’s business outcomes are driven by broader market conditions and its own operational decisions. That conclusion has been examined by legal counsel and is supported by public data and industry-wide trends, not by blog posts and narratives about any one individual.
If anonymous accounts were required to disclose who they are, how many of these pile-ons would still happen? And how different would this subreddit and Codesmith’s subreddit, with its history of bans look? The level of pushback I receive for raising these questions and calling attention to transparency is disgusting at a time where the world needs more honest and transparent information flow.