2 ms·
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 optio
by 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 agoit 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.