3 ms·
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 pub
by 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>where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? The USA has had a civil war on this one.