In the ever-performative world of social media, where stories of struggle and resilience earn praise and engagement in equal measure, one post this week turned into a public spectacle that has sharply divided opinion. What began as a motivational reflection by a young tech professional evolved into a fiery online exchange, involving accusations of dishonesty, victimhood narratives, and the murky ethics of professional storytelling.
At the centre of the storm is Namya Khan, a former employee at a startup, who shared a heartfelt post on X (formerly Twitter) about being fired from her first tech job in March 2023. In her post, Khan described how her product manager warned her that her work could soon be automated by artificial intelligence. A month later, she was let go. Instead of spiralling, Khan claimed she channelled the setback into a turning point by launching her own design agency. “Your worst day can be your biggest turning point,” she wrote—a line that resonated widely and drew admiration for her resilience.
What might have remained an inspiring career turnaround story took a sharp turn when Keswin Suresh, a co-founder of the startup (which Khan never named), publicly challenged her version of events. Suresh accused Khan of rewriting history for likes, engagement, and freelance credibility—adding that her dismissal was strictly performance-related, not the result of AI disruption.
“Sloppy Work, Missed Deadlines, Not AI”: Co-Founder Breaks Silence
Suresh didn’t hold back. In his detailed rebuttal, he alleged that Khan was consistently underperforming, with sloppy execution and missed deadlines being the real reason for her exit. “This wasn’t AI replacing a job. This was someone not doing the job,” he wrote, calling her post “content marketing wrapped in victimhood.”
He further claimed the startup had shown patience, given multiple chances and feedback, and even received a thank-you email from Khan after her departure. What irked him, he said, was her persistent narrative of being a casualty of automation—a version that indirectly cast her former team and employer in a negative light.
Online Jury Divided: Bold Truth-Telling or Bitter Retaliation?
The internet responded with predictable polarity. Some praised Suresh for setting the record straight in a space increasingly prone to manufactured narratives. “Far too many people lie about their reality here on X,” wrote one user. Another added, “Love hearing the other side from a professional standpoint.”
But others accused him of overreach and poor leadership. “This is not how a founder reacts. Demeaning your ex-employee was not needed here,” one commenter noted. Several pointed out that Khan had not named the company or any individuals, implying that Suresh had voluntarily inserted himself into the conversation—and escalated a situation that would’ve otherwise slipped by unnoticed.
“If your intention was to retaliate… you miscalculated. You just made your startup look way worse than she did,” another wrote, suggesting that the founder’s public reaction caused more reputational damage than Khan’s post ever could.
Leadership, Narrative, and the Performative Internet
The incident has raised broader questions about digital storytelling, professional boundaries, and leadership etiquette in the era of personal branding. Is it unethical to reframe personal struggles for engagement if no one is explicitly named or shamed? Does a founder have the right—or responsibility—to defend their company’s integrity in the face of a public narrative they feel is misleading?
In a follow-up comment, Suresh defended his choice to go public, saying, “This isn’t about pulling anyone down. It’s about standing up when someone distorts the truth for clout.”
But critics remain unconvinced. “Even if you felt it was needed, a DM or a call would’ve sufficed,” one user replied, warning that such public rebuttals may unsettle current employees more than protect the company's image.
The Verdict? Still Out
As the dust settles on this viral face-off, one thing is clear: in the age of personal PR and digital vulnerability, even stories of triumph over adversity can invite scrutiny. Whether Khan’s version was a calculated twist or an earnest reflection—and whether Suresh’s reply was justified transparency or undue humiliation—the lines between truth, perception, and performance continue to blur in the social media era.
One side claims it was a story of strength. The other, a case of storytelling at someone else's expense. The audience? Watching, liking, sharing—and judging.
At the centre of the storm is Namya Khan, a former employee at a startup, who shared a heartfelt post on X (formerly Twitter) about being fired from her first tech job in March 2023. In her post, Khan described how her product manager warned her that her work could soon be automated by artificial intelligence. A month later, she was let go. Instead of spiralling, Khan claimed she channelled the setback into a turning point by launching her own design agency. “Your worst day can be your biggest turning point,” she wrote—a line that resonated widely and drew admiration for her resilience.
What might have remained an inspiring career turnaround story took a sharp turn when Keswin Suresh, a co-founder of the startup (which Khan never named), publicly challenged her version of events. Suresh accused Khan of rewriting history for likes, engagement, and freelance credibility—adding that her dismissal was strictly performance-related, not the result of AI disruption.
“Sloppy Work, Missed Deadlines, Not AI”: Co-Founder Breaks Silence
Suresh didn’t hold back. In his detailed rebuttal, he alleged that Khan was consistently underperforming, with sloppy execution and missed deadlines being the real reason for her exit. “This wasn’t AI replacing a job. This was someone not doing the job,” he wrote, calling her post “content marketing wrapped in victimhood.”
He further claimed the startup had shown patience, given multiple chances and feedback, and even received a thank-you email from Khan after her departure. What irked him, he said, was her persistent narrative of being a casualty of automation—a version that indirectly cast her former team and employer in a negative light.
Online Jury Divided: Bold Truth-Telling or Bitter Retaliation?
The internet responded with predictable polarity. Some praised Suresh for setting the record straight in a space increasingly prone to manufactured narratives. “Far too many people lie about their reality here on X,” wrote one user. Another added, “Love hearing the other side from a professional standpoint.”
But others accused him of overreach and poor leadership. “This is not how a founder reacts. Demeaning your ex-employee was not needed here,” one commenter noted. Several pointed out that Khan had not named the company or any individuals, implying that Suresh had voluntarily inserted himself into the conversation—and escalated a situation that would’ve otherwise slipped by unnoticed.
“If your intention was to retaliate… you miscalculated. You just made your startup look way worse than she did,” another wrote, suggesting that the founder’s public reaction caused more reputational damage than Khan’s post ever could.
Leadership, Narrative, and the Performative Internet
The incident has raised broader questions about digital storytelling, professional boundaries, and leadership etiquette in the era of personal branding. Is it unethical to reframe personal struggles for engagement if no one is explicitly named or shamed? Does a founder have the right—or responsibility—to defend their company’s integrity in the face of a public narrative they feel is misleading?
In a follow-up comment, Suresh defended his choice to go public, saying, “This isn’t about pulling anyone down. It’s about standing up when someone distorts the truth for clout.”
But critics remain unconvinced. “Even if you felt it was needed, a DM or a call would’ve sufficed,” one user replied, warning that such public rebuttals may unsettle current employees more than protect the company's image.
The Verdict? Still Out
As the dust settles on this viral face-off, one thing is clear: in the age of personal PR and digital vulnerability, even stories of triumph over adversity can invite scrutiny. Whether Khan’s version was a calculated twist or an earnest reflection—and whether Suresh’s reply was justified transparency or undue humiliation—the lines between truth, perception, and performance continue to blur in the social media era.
One side claims it was a story of strength. The other, a case of storytelling at someone else's expense. The audience? Watching, liking, sharing—and judging.
You may also like
Labour Day gift: NDMC launches new canteen at headquarters
Govt may reverse stand on caste census after Bihar polls, says Chandrashekhar Azad
Sudirman Cup 2025: India beat England to end third in Group D
London Eye breaks down leaving tourists stuck in pods on hottest day of year
Punjab-Haryana water row: "Not a drop will be given away," says AAP leader Harjot Bains during protest at Nangal dam
