3 ms·
> 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. The
by 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.