That may be true, but she doesn't have the presence that Bray does. It's understandable that he doesn't want to be the face of it, but I feel he's doing the movement a disservice by quitting in protest and then _not_ working it. Whether he likes it or not, he's had a significant, long-term impact on the world and has been in the public eye for decades. Being able to put a graphic on the screen that says "Tim Bray: Internet pioneer quit in protest of Amazon workplace environment and worker treatment" is far more likely to gain traction with the average person, who is who they need to attract, than you can do with Cunningham. Even if Bray isn't as well spoken as she is.
It's unfortunate, but that's the way it works. One comes across as a person who saw something wrong and wanted to be part of the change, even at their own expense. The other comes across as a disgruntled fired employee (whether that's true or not is irrelevant when you have seconds to convince someone just to pay attention to your cause).
I don't think he's wrong to want to stay out of it and let others directly involved lead it, but I feel he hurt things a bit by shining the spotlight on himself (which was unintentional, to be sure) and then turning his back on it.
If this is the way it works, why are we in this situation? This kind of thing happens every few years. Some renegade upper-class guy quits and throws in his or her lot with the common folk. It's so stereotypical it's literally the plot for about a third of Hollywood movies.
What he's doing is right. He's exactly saying that this isn't performance art, it's not a media story about him. Talk to the people who are affected, working people, and give them a voice.
You don't need to have heard of everyone in an interview. An interviewer being able to introduce you as someone of authority (which Bray surely is) who wasn't fired, but quit in protest should (keyword, of course) give the layman enough information about you to at least listen to what you're saying. And given that the spotlight was put very squarely on him in the last week already, there's a chance that people have already seen news reports about his resignation, which would help with that a little more.
That's all hypothetical, though. I'm curious if there is any studies/hard data on the effectiveness of the two situations in reaching the public. Maybe I'll try to do some digging this weekend.
It's unfortunate, but that's the way it works. One comes across as a person who saw something wrong and wanted to be part of the change, even at their own expense. The other comes across as a disgruntled fired employee (whether that's true or not is irrelevant when you have seconds to convince someone just to pay attention to your cause).
I don't think he's wrong to want to stay out of it and let others directly involved lead it, but I feel he hurt things a bit by shining the spotlight on himself (which was unintentional, to be sure) and then turning his back on it.