tbf the article didn't say he resigned over that. They try to make the connection in the headline, but if you actually read they didn't officially fire him over that or anything else. He's leaving after a restructuring.
Oh, and he wasn't "caught". He did it in front of everyone.
Come to think of it, everything in that headline is basically untrue. It wasn't porn. He wasn't caught. And the implication that he resigned or was fired over it is not supported by the facts. Clickbait.
Could be. But companies don't fire execs. They tell em either you quit or we fire you, and they choose to quit with their dignity more or less intact.
That's not entirely true. When they want virtue signaling points, and they pay a lawyer to investigate so their case is rock solid, they fire them. It could be, of course. I think they go further than is warranted. Unless they know more than they're letting on.
(post is archived)