Just like Intel, Adobe has now had to clarify their position, and have posted "When anti-bullying efforts backfire" to their blog. You see, when they made their anti-bullying statement on twitter, people read that as if Adobe had decided to align themselves with trolls & freaks who send death threats and arrange swatting for kicks.
A quick recap, in case you haven’t followed it: A Gawker reporter posted a series of tweets that appeared to condone bullying of gamers. We were mistakenly listed as an advertiser on the Gawker website (which we are not), so we asked Gawker to remove our logo (which they did). However, as a result of our logo having appeared on the Gawker website, we received tweets that accused us of condoning bullying. One of our employees innocently responded to one of these tweets saying we don’t advertise on Gawker, that we asked them to remove our logo and that we don’t condone bullying. Unfortunately, that tweet was perceived to support Gamergaters and created a firestorm on twitter.
Later that day we tried to clarify our position but clearly we were not explicit enough.
Let me translate that last bit from PR terms into layman's terms: "Bro, do you even read?"
There was absolutely nothing wrong with how Adobe expressed themselves on twitter, it was clear as a bell. The issue lies with those who decided to read between the lines and project their own ideas onto the statement, which I have heard described as both "flaccid" and "cowardly". BoingBoing described Adobe as confused and blundering, which may be the closet to the truth even if PR is not just a fire-extinguisher. AdAge simply describes that the "actions were seen as siding with the vile elements of Gamergate", which is an understated way of putting it, while hundreds of tweeters and tumblr's painted targets on Adobe's logo and swore they'd never update flash, use photoshop or Acrobat ever again. I haven't seen "Gimp" mentioned that often in a day since the 90s.
When I tweeted out that "Gawker is Toxic", the ensuing twitter discussion focused mainly on Adobe. It did not focus on the website that doesn't pay its interns. The website that "doxxed" every gun owner in New York city, revealing the home & number of stalker victims who "thanked" Gawker for this idiocy already in the comments. Gawker media who has a preoccupation with sports celebrities hacked phone nudes, who likes leaking other peoples movie scripts, and who like to thumb their noses at Judges who order them to remove leaked sex tapes. Nobody likes Gawker, guys. They've literally turned bullying into a media empire. Yet somehow, Adobe was the main topic.
Adobe simply asked to have their logo removed. Gawker was showing logos of brands they were not partnered with. Brands like Jaguar and Adobe aren't your "flair", Gawker. You're supposed to have an actual partnership with brands before displaying their logos like that. I'm frankly fascinated that Gawker isn't getting called out for that. They must have an impressive collection of yet unreleased celebrity nudes, sex tapes and salacious silicon valley donation scandals.