3 ms·

What was his actual (not "alleged") behavior? If you don't know, maybe google doesn't know either, in which case why would they "call it out"?

kerng 8y ago
Was in the news, an internal Google investigation found it to be credible that Rubin coerced an employee to perform oral sex on him.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  The thing about "credible" is that it has two sides. Was his denial also credible? We need a shared public consensus around the truth about particular situations, such as whether someone has done something bad or not. One way to do that is with a trial, that has long-established traditions for admissible evidence and due process. And it has a definite and timely conclusion. Is this shared public consensus always right? No, and it doesn't have to be. We just have to have a process that everyone has enough faith in. Do the particular parties always need to agree with that public consensus? No, they and their friends, family, etc. may still proclaim the innocence of a convict and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when the public is called to be a huge jury on all kinds of issues; informed by whatever evidence makes it in the news (with no standards of admission). That leads to different people coming to different judgements, and those judgements build up into different sets of facts. There's a saying "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". That is a noble idea: that we can share facts and disagree, and that allows us to ultimately compromise and work together. But it depends on a shared consensus of what the facts are. For better or worse (I believe better), when evidence is inconclusive, the shared public consensus is to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. One-sided "credibility" is not conclusive and doesn't belong in the set of shared public facts.
  - kerng 8y ago
    The investigation at Google, considering both side came to that conclusion. Two other execs provided input also the NYT article last week mentioned. Page believed it and showed Rubin the door.
    - jeffdavis 8y ago
      Came to what conclusion, specifically? Did they come to that conclusion based on a process established beforehand? Is this process documented publicly? Or maybe this was just a calculated risk assessment, thinking more about PR and avoiding internal drama than a search for truth?
      - kerng 8y ago
        Here is the article from the NYT. You can read it and come to your own conclusions: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... The truth came out eventually, although unfortunately four years later looking at the dates. Google tried to hide it, that's why people are upset.

kerng 8y ago

Was in the news, an internal Google investigation found it to be credible that Rubin coerced an employee to perform oral sex on him.

jeffdavis 8y ago
The thing about "credible" is that it has two sides. Was his denial also credible? We need a shared public consensus around the truth about particular situations, such as whether someone has done something bad or not. One way to do that is with a trial, that has long-established traditions for admissible evidence and due process. And it has a definite and timely conclusion. Is this shared public consensus always right? No, and it doesn't have to be. We just have to have a process that everyone has enough faith in. Do the particular parties always need to agree with that public consensus? No, they and their friends, family, etc. may still proclaim the innocence of a convict and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when the public is called to be a huge jury on all kinds of issues; informed by whatever evidence makes it in the news (with no standards of admission). That leads to different people coming to different judgements, and those judgements build up into different sets of facts. There's a saying "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". That is a noble idea: that we can share facts and disagree, and that allows us to ultimately compromise and work together. But it depends on a shared consensus of what the facts are. For better or worse (I believe better), when evidence is inconclusive, the shared public consensus is to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. One-sided "credibility" is not conclusive and doesn't belong in the set of shared public facts.
- kerng 8y ago
  The investigation at Google, considering both side came to that conclusion. Two other execs provided input also the NYT article last week mentioned. Page believed it and showed Rubin the door.
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    Came to what conclusion, specifically? Did they come to that conclusion based on a process established beforehand? Is this process documented publicly? Or maybe this was just a calculated risk assessment, thinking more about PR and avoiding internal drama than a search for truth?
    - kerng 8y ago
      Here is the article from the NYT. You can read it and come to your own conclusions: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... The truth came out eventually, although unfortunately four years later looking at the dates. Google tried to hide it, that's why people are upset.