4 ms·

No, the discussion is about acknowledging that behaviour is anti-competitive.

cycloptic 6y ago
I don't see how. Acknowledging what behavior is anti-competitive is generally done by a court, not by us random posters on HN. (If you're a federal prosecutor with some authoritative insight here then please disclose :)
shadowgovt 6y ago
That's the point of the training. Determination of whether a behavior is anti-competitive is specifically not something a software engineer is trained in. They aren't lawyers. The law on this topic is huge, nuanced, and deeply technical. Google isn't comfortable with individual untrained software engineers speculating on law for the same reason it isn't comfortable with the lawyers getting it and modifying the privacy coding---people are trained in disciplines that they are highly skilled in, and it's important to let them do their jobs.
- int_19h 6y ago
  In this particular case, I think Google is far more worried about new legislation passing that would redefine what "anti-competitive" means, such that it's definitely applicable to Google - and that its own employees pointing out instances of monopoly abuse would contribute to the probability of such a law, and its severity. But in this context, from the perspective of society as a whole trying to decide what the law should be, the personal opinion of Google employees does matter, regardless of what's presently legal.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  > That's the point of the training. Determination of whether a behavior is anti-competitive is specifically not something a software engineer is trained in. They aren't lawyers. The law on this topic is huge, nuanced, and deeply technical. This is ultimately an ethical question, not a legal one. But I guess if you come in with the mindset of "might makes right" then you won't see the distinction. > Google isn't comfortable with individual untrained software engineers speculating on law for the same reason it isn't comfortable with the lawyers getting it and modifying the privacy coding--- Surely the equivalent would be lawyers weighing in on the spec of what the "privacy coding" should do. Which is very much something that they ought to do? > people are trained in disciplines that they are highly skilled in, and it's important to let them do their jobs. This whole discussion is a perfect example of why this silo mentality is fucking toxic. You don't need to be a chef to point out that the food is rancid.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    > Surely the equivalent... No, and that's exactly the kind of categorical error that software engineers make and Google seeks to avoid. Merely speculating on the topic in writing can be used against Google in a court of law. Google encourages the software engineers to point out the food is rancid. Via the proper channels, so they don't accidentally put something somewhere that leads to a New York Times headline that says "FAMOUS FOOD TASTER SAYS FOOD IS RANCID---SHOULD RESTAURANT BE SHUT DOWN?" The training is about how to have the desired effect without the undesired effect.

I don't see how. Acknowledging what behavior is anti-competitive is generally done by a court, not by us random posters on HN. (If you're a federal prosecutor with some authoritative insight here then please disclose :)

shadowgovt 6y ago

That's the point of the training. Determination of whether a behavior is anti-competitive is specifically not something a software engineer is trained in. They aren't lawyers. The law on this topic is huge, nuanced, and deeply technical. Google isn't comfortable with individual untrained software engineers speculating on law for the same reason it isn't comfortable with the lawyers getting it and modifying the privacy coding---people are trained in disciplines that they are highly skilled in, and it's important to let them do their jobs.

int_19h 6y ago
In this particular case, I think Google is far more worried about new legislation passing that would redefine what "anti-competitive" means, such that it's definitely applicable to Google - and that its own employees pointing out instances of monopoly abuse would contribute to the probability of such a law, and its severity. But in this context, from the perspective of society as a whole trying to decide what the law should be, the personal opinion of Google employees does matter, regardless of what's presently legal.
Nullabillity 6y ago
> That's the point of the training. Determination of whether a behavior is anti-competitive is specifically not something a software engineer is trained in. They aren't lawyers. The law on this topic is huge, nuanced, and deeply technical. This is ultimately an ethical question, not a legal one. But I guess if you come in with the mindset of "might makes right" then you won't see the distinction. > Google isn't comfortable with individual untrained software engineers speculating on law for the same reason it isn't comfortable with the lawyers getting it and modifying the privacy coding--- Surely the equivalent would be lawyers weighing in on the spec of what the "privacy coding" should do. Which is very much something that they ought to do? > people are trained in disciplines that they are highly skilled in, and it's important to let them do their jobs. This whole discussion is a perfect example of why this silo mentality is fucking toxic. You don't need to be a chef to point out that the food is rancid.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  > Surely the equivalent... No, and that's exactly the kind of categorical error that software engineers make and Google seeks to avoid. Merely speculating on the topic in writing can be used against Google in a court of law. Google encourages the software engineers to point out the food is rancid. Via the proper channels, so they don't accidentally put something somewhere that leads to a New York Times headline that says "FAMOUS FOOD TASTER SAYS FOOD IS RANCID---SHOULD RESTAURANT BE SHUT DOWN?" The training is about how to have the desired effect without the undesired effect.