The CEO of Intuit (who make financial software) did an interview, and it seems a pretty normal interview. But some senior guy at the company asked for part of the interview to be deleted, after it took place.

By putting in that unusual request (rather angrily), more attention is being drawn to the interview.

Thoughts?

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    17 days ago

    Most of that interview is deadly dull and there’s no way I would have read to the end.

    Very nice of Intuit to highlight the juicy parts.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      17 days ago

      Tbh the exchange is a bit testy. Even if they didn’t request it to be removed, I have a feeling it would have gone viral.

      But the Streisand effect is going to show the coverup and the juicy parts. It’s just…amazing

  • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    No one from Intuit has any business asking an interviewer to, essentially, falsify data that can easily influence share price. If Goodarzi can’t take the heat in an important interview, then her minions failed to prep her adequately. That’s a “you” problem, Miss “I am Intuit”, not the reporter’s problem.

  • moonlight@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    17 days ago

    Absolutely, these corporate types are so clueless when it comes to public messaging.

    They realized that it’s obvious that they’re the bad guys, and the interview response wasn’t convincing. But then to try to bully the interviewer into deleting it? That just seems stupid.

    • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      17 days ago

      There’s a reason they do it. For every time we hear about it, there are 100 stories that got buried using the same strategy

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 days ago

        And chances are, the company has got away with it before. It just didn’t work this time.

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 days ago

    Eh. Honestly, the line of “questions” was rather stupid.

    “Why aren’t you lobbying to make your business irrelevant” is essentially what the interviewer pushed aggressively.

    Sure, I get calling out a CEO for deflecting tough questions with corporate BS. But it was a pretty dumb line of questioning in the first place.

    Why isn’t Google lobbying for privacy protections?

    Why isn’t Comcast lobbying for net neutrality?

    Just make your statement and ask for comment. “Our listeners consider Intuits lobbying against tax reform that would benefit tax payers to be adversarial to their customers. What would you say to them?”

    • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      16 days ago

      I don’t know, I see Nilay’s question as “why aren’t you doing what’s ethical?” and I always welcome that line of questioning.

    • Debs@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      I see the question as, you say you are lobbying the government to simplify the tax code but this is actually what simplifying the tax code would look like. The subtext is, y’all aren’t doing what you claim.

      Overall I think the guy came off pretty poorly throughout the interview.

  • thesmokingman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    I have more important things to do than to lobby the government to send a tax bill.

    Why would the CEO be dumb enough to say this in an interview? If your business model is fucking people, your CEO has to have a cool head when asked if he’s fucking people!

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    16 days ago

    Step 1: go on record

    Step 2: punch self in crotch

    Step 3: have someone else angrily insist you didn’t and/or that should be stricken from the record because you yelped.

    Everything looks by-the-book here.

  • Computerchairgeneral@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    17 days ago

    Considering I would have never heard of this otherwise, yeah I think it’s the Streisand Effect at work. But what a bizarre thing to want scrubbed from the Internet. Like it’s not a particularly hard-hitting question and the CEO clearly had a prepared, corporate-speak answer ready. It feels like something that wouldn’t have attracted any attention if they hadn’t called attention to it. So, classic Streisand Effect I guess.