I seriously doubt Google, Meta, or Microsoft are at any risk of an employee sabotaging a digital asset.  Companies of any size have a “promote to production” process that strictly controls what is implemented and when, with procedures to back out changes.  Access to make changes to systems is limited, and the access to production systems is frequently not even an actual person, but a process. Accounts that do have “critical” access are very limited, and there are processes in place to quickly cut off this access in case of a security issue.What I suspect is happening is that it’s easier for the company to lay everybody off at once, and simply deactivate these people in their access and authentication system.  The managers making these decisions then avoid awkward conversations informing people they’ve been let go, or having to debate decisions with people defending their team.  The larger concern is companies don’t want people copying things they’ve worked on or contacts.  Employees will sign some type of non-disclosure to get their severance, but information has a value to you even if you’d never actually disclose it. It’s a complete and utter management failure to not speak with employees you’ve let go.  Even if you provide managers with a script so they don’t say stupid things, part of management is doing difficult things.  It’s easier to just make people disappear, but this approach says a lot about the integrity, governance, and maturity of these firms

I seriously doubt Google, Meta, or Microsoft are at any risk of an employee sabotaging a digital asset.  Companies of any size have a “promote to production” process that strictly controls what is implemented and when, with procedures to back out changes.  Access to make changes to systems is limited, and the access to production systems is frequently not even an actual person, but a process. Accounts that do have “critical” access are very limited, and there are processes in place to quickly cut off this access in case of a security issue.What I suspect is happening is that it’s easier for the company to lay everybody off at once, and simply deactivate these people in their access and authentication system.  The managers making these decisions then avoid awkward conversations informing people they’ve been let go, or having to debate decisions with people defending their team.  The larger concern is companies don’t want people copying things they’ve worked on or contacts.  Employees will sign some type of non-disclosure to get their severance, but information has a value to you even if you’d never actually disclose it. It’s a complete and utter management failure to not speak with employees you’ve let go.  Even if you provide managers with a script so they don’t say stupid things, part of management is doing difficult things.  It’s easier to just make people disappear, but this approach says a lot about the integrity, governance, and maturity of these firms

user
no
assistant