4 ms·

I'd tend to trust the evil corporations take much more than the individual, because google is subject to much more scrutiny and much more liability. Lying and r

I'd tend to trust the evil corporations take much more than the individual, because google is subject to much more scrutiny and much more liability. Lying and retaliating by big companies tends to be rare because it can affect the bottom line much, much more than a bit of internal dissent. Additionally they're publicly traded so statements on the matter that could be construed as market-relevant must not be false or the SEC starts to take a hard look.

oblio 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics#Lobby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics#Lobby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland%E2%80%93Molina_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland%E2%80%... You were saying? The market rarely self regulates, unfortunately. (Ha ha ha, this got flagged :-) )
dangerface 7y ago
> google is subject to much more scrutiny and much more liability. Not really if they do something wrong they will get a fine of tens of millions but thats a tiny percentage of their profit, its an operating cost not a punishment. > Lying and retaliating by big companies tends to be rare because it can affect the bottom line much, much more than a bit of internal dissent. Not really again because they have so much money if anything affects their bottom line they create a pr campaign to change public opinion, its super effective even for something thats very easy to prove is dangerous like smoking.
- lordlimecat 7y ago
  >Not really if they do something wrong they will get a fine of tens of millions but thats a tiny percentage of their profit, its an operating cost not a punishment. And lying gains them a benefit in excess of tens of millions? It's all too easy as a large company to use non-specific (and SEC-approved) language to dismiss the claims: "At Google we have a non-retaliation policy and take all such concerns seriously. We are investigating these claims and will cooperate...." When instead they go out of their way to provide a specific response and claim to have evidence to back it up-- publicly and to the media-- it is thus very credible; they have much to lose if they are lying and very little to gain. On the flip side, the terminated users have zero incentive not to lie if it benefits them; there are no laws against doing so, and there is much to gain in terms of reputation and potential settlements. Lets keep in mind as well that SEC sanctions can be much more significant than simply a fine. Musk made a tweet and was forced to step down. You think Google's going to take action that could piss off both labor boards AND the SEC AND any courts that end up handling potential litigation?

oblio 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics#Lobby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics#Lobby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland%E2%80%93Molina_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Rowland%E2%80%... You were saying? The market rarely self regulates, unfortunately. (Ha ha ha, this got flagged :-) )

dangerface 7y ago

> google is subject to much more scrutiny and much more liability. Not really if they do something wrong they will get a fine of tens of millions but thats a tiny percentage of their profit, its an operating cost not a punishment. > Lying and retaliating by big companies tends to be rare because it can affect the bottom line much, much more than a bit of internal dissent. Not really again because they have so much money if anything affects their bottom line they create a pr campaign to change public opinion, its super effective even for something thats very easy to prove is dangerous like smoking.

lordlimecat 7y ago
>Not really if they do something wrong they will get a fine of tens of millions but thats a tiny percentage of their profit, its an operating cost not a punishment. And lying gains them a benefit in excess of tens of millions? It's all too easy as a large company to use non-specific (and SEC-approved) language to dismiss the claims: "At Google we have a non-retaliation policy and take all such concerns seriously. We are investigating these claims and will cooperate...." When instead they go out of their way to provide a specific response and claim to have evidence to back it up-- publicly and to the media-- it is thus very credible; they have much to lose if they are lying and very little to gain. On the flip side, the terminated users have zero incentive not to lie if it benefits them; there are no laws against doing so, and there is much to gain in terms of reputation and potential settlements. Lets keep in mind as well that SEC sanctions can be much more significant than simply a fine. Musk made a tweet and was forced to step down. You think Google's going to take action that could piss off both labor boards AND the SEC AND any courts that end up handling potential litigation?