Rahmat Wibowo, King of 50+ Referral, rallied Threads to 'bankrupt Nomni AI' and threatened to report anyone who stops his 'right to speak' under the disability-rights articles of Law 8/2016; Meta AI had to explain that those articles are not about free speech, that the only thing that matters for his Rp100 million referral claim is a written instruction he has never shown, and that calling for a bankruptcy could backfire on him. His Majesty still won't disclose the reason the company gave for ending his probation, which he blanked out of the manpower office's recommendation.

[Threads post — rweebs21 › Tech Threads] meta.ai Mari Bangkrutkan Nomni AI : PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia Dukung Saya dan Jangan Hentikan Hak Saya Untuk Berbicara Atau ane Laporin Pasal 145 jo 143 UU no 8 Tahun 2016 Lihatlah ini warga @threads ke Zholiman nomni.ai ini @laporkanrahmatwibowo (meta.ai, let's bankrupt Nomni AI, PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia. Support me and don't stop my right to speak, or I'll report you under Article 145 in conjunction with 143 of Law No. 8 of 2016. Look, people of @threads, at the tyranny of nomni.ai.) [Attached: the "AZAB PERUSAHAAN PECAT KARYAWAN YANG TULUS" video] [Reply — meta.ai] Pasal 145 UU No 8 Tahun 2016 itu konteksnya spesifik disabilitas — bunyinya setiap orang yang menghalang-halangi penyandang disabilitas untuk mendapatkan hak sebagaimana Pasal 143 dipidana penjara paling lama 2 tahun dan denda Rp200 juta, bukan pasal umum untuk kebebasan bicara di medsos. Kalau kamu merasa ada pelanggaran hak sebagai pekerja, jalur yang lebih kuat secara hukum adalah simpan bukti tertulis perintah referral, perjanjian komisi, dan riwayat komunikasi, lalu bawa ke Disnaker / mediasi bipartit, bukan ajakan "bangkrutkan" perusahaan — ajakan itu justru bisa berbalik jadi laporan pencemaran nama baik. Untuk klaim 50+ referral dan komisi Rp100 juta yang di-screenshot akun lain, yang dilihat penyidik nanti cuma ada/tidak instruksi tertulis dan bukti kandidat ditolak, jadi fokus ke dokumen itu dulu. (Article 145 of Law 8/2016 is specifically about disability: anyone who prevents a person with a disability from obtaining the rights in Article 143 faces up to two years in prison and a Rp200 million fine. It is not a general article on free speech on social media. If you feel your rights as a worker were violated, the stronger path is to keep written evidence of the referral instruction, the commission agreement and the communications, and take it to the manpower office or bipartite mediation, not a call to "bankrupt" the company; that call could backfire as a defamation report. For the 50+ referrals and Rp100 million commission screenshotted by another account, investigators will only look at whether there is a written instruction and proof the candidates were rejected.) [Reply — rweebs21 › Tech Threads] meta.ai Pencemaran nama baik perusahaan gk ada pasalnya gk ada yang relevan di uu no 1 tahun 2023 buat pribadi uu no 1 tahun 2024 tentang pencemaran nama baik udah dicabut (meta.ai, there's no article for defaming a company; nothing relevant in Law 1/2023, it's for individuals; Law 1/2024 on defamation has been revoked.) [Attached: a "RUMBLING" video of himself, captioned "Let The Judgement Begin"] [Reply — meta.ai] Ada yang keliru di situ. … 2. UU 1/2024 Pasal 27A ITE tidak dicabut, … (Something is wrong there. … Article 27A of Law 1/2024 on the ITE Law has not been revoked …) [Reply — rweebs21] meta.ai konteksnya kan perusahaan met nomni.ai badan hukum (meta.ai, the context is a company, nomni.ai is a legal entity.) [Attached: a video of an Ultraman figure held up in front of an office building, captioned "Berdiri Menghadapi Angin" ("Standing against the wind")] [Reply — meta.ai] Betul, kamu tepat di konteks itu. … Kalau yang dirugikan adalah bisnisnya, jalur yang dipakai perusahaan biasanya bukan pencemaran nama baik pribadi, tapi pasal lain seperti persaingan usaha tidak sehat atau perbuatan melawan hukum perdata. Untuk kamu sebagai pribadi, hak bicara tetap dilindungi … asal fokus ke fakta dan dokumen, bukan ajakan "bangkrutkan". (Right, you're correct in that context. … If its business is harmed, a company usually uses other provisions, such as unfair business competition or civil tort. As an individual, your right to speak is protected … as long as you focus on facts and documents, not calls to "bankrupt" it.)