5 ms·
If harassers, as you have mentioned, can simply switch to another channel, then what problem exactly is this measure trying to solve? I'm honestly confused.
by pera 9y ago
If harassers, as you have mentioned, can simply switch to another channel, then what problem exactly is this measure trying to solve? I'm honestly confused.
- guitarbill 9y agoAss-covering. It should've been obvious as soon as HR was mentioned that this isn't about helping employees, harassed or not.
- shawnz 9y agoBefore this change, would the company have been liable for harassing DMs on Slack, an unaffiliated service where they previously were not able to read peoples DMs?
- efuquen 9y ago> an unaffiliated service Unaffiliated? The company a customer that is paying Slack for a messaging service, that certainly isn't 'unaffiliated'.
- Normal_gaussian 9y agoIt increases the friction of harrassment
- ctrl-j 9y agoNo it doesn't. It literally just removes liability from the corporation. If you've ever dealt with toxic work relationships, you know that stopping harassment isn't going to come down to how you are allowed to pass notes.
- rmc 9y agoBecause you could just forbid employees from using such other form of communication at work.
- ben509 9y agoNow the harassers are doing more and more to harass and leaving more evidence behind. And you have a more compelling case, "they were on Slack, they were on email, they were texting, they set up their own ICQ server..."
- UncleMeat 9y agoFriction. Yes they could use PGP messages. But most people are idiots and use the systems that are available and simple. If somebody needs to think "I've got to go through these extra steps to be an asshole" then they might think twice in the first place.
- def_true_false 9y agoNo need for PGP. Using any other messenger that won't give private information out for no reason would be enough.