4 ms·

>“Google announced a prospective policy change that applies going forward to individual sex harassment and sex assault claims. This policy change does not apply

>“Google announced a prospective policy change that applies going forward to individual sex harassment and sex assault claims. This policy change does not apply retroactively to claims already compelled to arbitration.” Given the context, the phrase "already compelled to arbitration" sounds pretty fucking disgusting. It gave me nausea just reading it. Perhaps Google's lawyers should take slightly more care over these legal missives and maybe wonder, given the wider situation, if it makes them or their employers look like complete and utter scumbags before hitting send.

zeroname 8y ago
Forced arbitration should simply be illegal. As long as it's legal, you can't expect individual companies to not make use of it, that would be a competitive disadvantage.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  I agree that forced arbitration should be illegal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean we can't criticize a company for doing it!
  - zeroname 8y ago
    I didn't say you can't criticize it. I said you can't expect anything else. Are you going to go down the list of companies from A to Z criticizing everyone of them? Is that going to fix the problem?
- 0x262d 8y ago
  actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. [citation needed] > meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes. What's economically illiterate is to expect market participants not to exploit the rules that are in place on moral grounds. You can make a moral case against an indefinite number of things done by private enterprise, but you can't maintain negative publicity for all of them. If you don't change the rules, companies only pay lip service, nothing more. That's not ideology, that's not "veneration", that's common sense.
    - 0x262d 8y ago
      ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do.
      - zeroname 8y ago
        > ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. No, where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? Google is always in the media spotlight, they're more likely to pay lip service than others. > I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do. I'm not excusing anything, that's a really unfair allegation. I'm saying you are naive if you expect anything else out of the rules that are in place and that the rules need to be changed. Of course big companies yield to PR campaigns, that's a market incentive in and of itself. Yet, these arbitration clauses remain pervasive. Companies can just wait out some harassment suit that may never happen and then apologize and maybe change something.
- starbeast 8y ago
  I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it. I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Let's imagine manslaughter was legal (as it has been in the past, to some degree) and I would be here arguing that it should be illegal because you can't trust people not to kill each other merely because there's a court of public opinion. Would that be morally bankrupt, or just common sense?
    - starbeast 8y ago
      >I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Are you a space lizard?
malka 8y ago
> if it makes them or their employers look like complete and utter scumbags before hitting send. Given Google reputation, they do not have much to lose.
XCabbage 8y ago
I don't get it. Why is this even controversial, let alone "fucking disgusting"? What exactly do you expect Google to do instead? As I see it, they have 3 options: 1. Give accusers the right to choose whether to relitigate claims currently in progress, effectively allowing them to judge whether to restart their case from scratch based on how well it's currently going and forcing individuals accused of misconduct to be investigated twice for the same offence. 2. Somehow unilaterally force all current cases to be moved to the courts, removing their secrecy, and exposing the details of previously confidential claims to the world without the consent of the alleged victim. 3. Do exactly what they're currently doing. Do you see some option that I don't? Or are you advocating for options 1 or 2? I suspect both of them would be completely illegal.
- 0x262d 8y ago
  it is both legal and moral to let people restart their cases rather than arbitrating, given that arbitration is a known dead end that companies use to avoid responsibility for hurting their employees. edit: also it's fucking disgusting because it is Google shamelessly covering their asses to protect sexual abusers and a culture of sexual abuse and prevent real justice in a retroactive inquiry. that's completely straightforward.

zeroname 8y ago

Forced arbitration should simply be illegal. As long as it's legal, you can't expect individual companies to not make use of it, that would be a competitive disadvantage.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
I agree that forced arbitration should be illegal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean we can't criticize a company for doing it!
- zeroname 8y ago
  I didn't say you can't criticize it. I said you can't expect anything else. Are you going to go down the list of companies from A to Z criticizing everyone of them? Is that going to fix the problem?
0x262d 8y ago
actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. [citation needed] > meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes. What's economically illiterate is to expect market participants not to exploit the rules that are in place on moral grounds. You can make a moral case against an indefinite number of things done by private enterprise, but you can't maintain negative publicity for all of them. If you don't change the rules, companies only pay lip service, nothing more. That's not ideology, that's not "veneration", that's common sense.
  - 0x262d 8y ago
    ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do.
    - zeroname 8y ago
      > ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. No, where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? Google is always in the media spotlight, they're more likely to pay lip service than others. > I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do. I'm not excusing anything, that's a really unfair allegation. I'm saying you are naive if you expect anything else out of the rules that are in place and that the rules need to be changed. Of course big companies yield to PR campaigns, that's a market incentive in and of itself. Yet, these arbitration clauses remain pervasive. Companies can just wait out some harassment suit that may never happen and then apologize and maybe change something.
starbeast 8y ago
I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it. I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Let's imagine manslaughter was legal (as it has been in the past, to some degree) and I would be here arguing that it should be illegal because you can't trust people not to kill each other merely because there's a court of public opinion. Would that be morally bankrupt, or just common sense?
  - starbeast 8y ago
    >I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Are you a space lizard?

malka 8y ago

> if it makes them or their employers look like complete and utter scumbags before hitting send. Given Google reputation, they do not have much to lose.

XCabbage 8y ago

I don't get it. Why is this even controversial, let alone "fucking disgusting"? What exactly do you expect Google to do instead? As I see it, they have 3 options: 1. Give accusers the right to choose whether to relitigate claims currently in progress, effectively allowing them to judge whether to restart their case from scratch based on how well it's currently going and forcing individuals accused of misconduct to be investigated twice for the same offence. 2. Somehow unilaterally force all current cases to be moved to the courts, removing their secrecy, and exposing the details of previously confidential claims to the world without the consent of the alleged victim. 3. Do exactly what they're currently doing. Do you see some option that I don't? Or are you advocating for options 1 or 2? I suspect both of them would be completely illegal.

0x262d 8y ago
it is both legal and moral to let people restart their cases rather than arbitrating, given that arbitration is a known dead end that companies use to avoid responsibility for hurting their employees. edit: also it's fucking disgusting because it is Google shamelessly covering their asses to protect sexual abusers and a culture of sexual abuse and prevent real justice in a retroactive inquiry. that's completely straightforward.