15 ms·
> The distinction here is that Google employees are not legally banned from speaking as a private citizen about the company they work for. They just won't be em
by Nullabillity 6y ago
> The distinction here is that Google employees are not legally banned from speaking as a private citizen about the company they work for. They just won't be employees of Google for much longer after Google finds out.
A distinction without a difference, the intended effect is still the same: discouraging people from speaking out.
> I don't like that any more than you do. Corporations have far too much power in the US, and way more control over the lives of ordinary citizens than they should. But, there's nothing against the rules here.
Then surely the focus should be on changing the rules and pushing back what little we can, not making excuses about how it is technically not illegal.
- shadowgovt 6y agoSpeaking out about legal violations is not only allowed, it's protected by whistleblowing laws. It's an adversarial process, but legally protected. What Google frowns upon, and will terminate an employee legally for, is speculation outside of that legally-protected space. So going to the SEC with evidence Google is acting bad? Legally protected. Circulating in an email "hey, is thing X that team Y is doing monopolistic?" No, and you'll get canned for having that discussion in an unprivileged environment without legal counsel present.
- pmiller2 6y agoLook, I'm not making an excuse. I'm telling you how it is. The problem here is that big corporations have captured the political process in this country. Your representatives in Washington probably don't represent you; they're responsive to the people who fund their campaigns, and, unless you're a billionaire or something, that's not you.