3 ms·

It's only incongruous if you evaluate it in the context of people who expect to be treated fairly when they report mistreatment. There is a pattern of behavior

by ygjb 6y ago

It's only incongruous if you evaluate it in the context of people who expect to be treated fairly when they report mistreatment. There is a pattern of behavior minimizing the scope and impact of abusive or discriminatory actions across the tech industry, and it is very prevalent on this site as well. The simple reality is that unless an employee is able to obtain clear, slam-dunk evidence of directly legally actionable abuse or misconduct, then it is a huge personal risk to come forward. Most businesses that are large enough to have systemic problems have enormous resources to litigate against those claims. In contrast, for employees to collect and use evidence, it is required that they: a) experience the abuse or discrimination, repeatedly b) collect evidence and documentation of that behaviour c) exfiltrate that evidence in contravention of legal contracts that can include NDAs, binding arbitration clauses, morality/non desparagement clauses, etc d) be in a strong enough financial position to defend against litigation e) be confident enough in their own skills, reputation, and network to be able to give up future career prospects based on A-D. And this is just from the 5 minutes it took me to compose this message. I get that HN is a bastion of support for meritocracy, and that founder worship is a strong bias for many on this forum, but as a community, and as an industry we have got to stop undermining and destroying the folks trying to hold people and firms accountable for bad behavior.

treis 6y ago
Thinly veiled insults aside, you didn't address my actual point. The people in the article risked all the repercussions you mentioned by formally reporting the abuse and speaking with the NYTimes. Saying that they would do that but not risk snapping a pic of a racist e-mail, as an example, doesn't make any sense.
- ygjb 6y ago
  Insulting people wasn't my intention, but I have some uncharitable views of the HN community members that cry meritocracy and find founders blameless. You are correct that the people in the article that either filed complaints, or spoke with the New York Times risked repercussions, but not all of the folks the Times spoke with are identified. People were willing to talk, but not necessarily on the record, or to be identified. That is because they are fearful of reprisal, based on past experiences and observations. That is the biggest challenge for people confronting systemic issues like racism, poverty, homelessness, or any number of topics. It's not enough for victims to stand up for themselves, because there is a systemic imbalance in the ability to pursue remedies through the courts or other means. Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book (and especially in contrast to pocket books of the people or organizations that have made that person a victim). There are so many individuals who have left the tech industry after experiencing bad behaviour, discrimination, and abuse, and any one of those people could be the next Hedy Lamarr or Philip Emeagwali, and the industry is worse for not having those people in it. Again, as a community we do our peers a disservice by not trusting them when they say there is a problem, especially when they are so consistently proven right.
  - treis 6y ago
    >You are correct that the people in the article that either filed complaints, or spoke with the New York Times risked repercussions, but not all of the folks the Times spoke with are identified. People were willing to talk, but not necessarily on the record, or to be identified. That is because they are fearful of reprisal, based on past experiences and observations. You're arguing against a straw man here. I did not say that the only acceptable proof was an on the record statement. Anonymous corroboration or reporting a general description of an e-mail to preserve anonymity would be fine. There's nothing even like that. >Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book That's not really true. Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. The difference is making specific accusations and providing some level of detail. There's essentially none of that in the NYTimes piece.
    - ygjb 6y ago
      > You're arguing against a straw man here. [...] There's nothing even like that. And you are arguing in bad faith; there are several parts of the article that detail exactly what you are looing for. In the second paragraph, the article indicates that 11 of the folks who left notified HR or their managers. In the third paragraph one of the named victims states she made several reports. In the sixth paragraph 5 on the record employees and 18 off the record employees, and internal documents and recordings are claimed as evidence. Despite this, Coinbase only reports three official complaints in the year many of these folks left. Coupled with the stream of hot garbage that Brian Armstrong has proposed trying to position as being "Mission Focused", in the middle of a pandemic, massive, ongoing riots, and political instability just illustrates how utterly tone deaf the leadership at Coinbase is. > Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. Yes, you correct. You also have to look at the facts; Susan is an excellent writer, and based on her book, she already had some measure of experience speaking truth to power. Coupled with the fact that she was already recognized as a talented engineer and a published author, it's not surprising her blog post was as well received as it was. Susan also wrote about her experience with her own voice and had receipts to show how bad it was. I certainly don't want to down play the issues that women in tech face, but it's also well known that people of color frequently have different social and economic circumstances than white or white-presenting folks (and it's not me saying this -- she calls out in her book the casual anti-semitism she faced from folks who didn't know she is Jewish).

by ygjb 6y ago

treis 6y ago

Thinly veiled insults aside, you didn't address my actual point. The people in the article risked all the repercussions you mentioned by formally reporting the abuse and speaking with the NYTimes. Saying that they would do that but not risk snapping a pic of a racist e-mail, as an example, doesn't make any sense.

ygjb 6y ago
Insulting people wasn't my intention, but I have some uncharitable views of the HN community members that cry meritocracy and find founders blameless. You are correct that the people in the article that either filed complaints, or spoke with the New York Times risked repercussions, but not all of the folks the Times spoke with are identified. People were willing to talk, but not necessarily on the record, or to be identified. That is because they are fearful of reprisal, based on past experiences and observations. That is the biggest challenge for people confronting systemic issues like racism, poverty, homelessness, or any number of topics. It's not enough for victims to stand up for themselves, because there is a systemic imbalance in the ability to pursue remedies through the courts or other means. Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book (and especially in contrast to pocket books of the people or organizations that have made that person a victim). There are so many individuals who have left the tech industry after experiencing bad behaviour, discrimination, and abuse, and any one of those people could be the next Hedy Lamarr or Philip Emeagwali, and the industry is worse for not having those people in it. Again, as a community we do our peers a disservice by not trusting them when they say there is a problem, especially when they are so consistently proven right.
- treis 6y ago
  >You are correct that the people in the article that either filed complaints, or spoke with the New York Times risked repercussions, but not all of the folks the Times spoke with are identified. People were willing to talk, but not necessarily on the record, or to be identified. That is because they are fearful of reprisal, based on past experiences and observations. You're arguing against a straw man here. I did not say that the only acceptable proof was an on the record statement. Anonymous corroboration or reporting a general description of an e-mail to preserve anonymity would be fine. There's nothing even like that. >Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book That's not really true. Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. The difference is making specific accusations and providing some level of detail. There's essentially none of that in the NYTimes piece.
  - ygjb 6y ago
    > You're arguing against a straw man here. [...] There's nothing even like that. And you are arguing in bad faith; there are several parts of the article that detail exactly what you are looing for. In the second paragraph, the article indicates that 11 of the folks who left notified HR or their managers. In the third paragraph one of the named victims states she made several reports. In the sixth paragraph 5 on the record employees and 18 off the record employees, and internal documents and recordings are claimed as evidence. Despite this, Coinbase only reports three official complaints in the year many of these folks left. Coupled with the stream of hot garbage that Brian Armstrong has proposed trying to position as being "Mission Focused", in the middle of a pandemic, massive, ongoing riots, and political instability just illustrates how utterly tone deaf the leadership at Coinbase is. > Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. Yes, you correct. You also have to look at the facts; Susan is an excellent writer, and based on her book, she already had some measure of experience speaking truth to power. Coupled with the fact that she was already recognized as a talented engineer and a published author, it's not surprising her blog post was as well received as it was. Susan also wrote about her experience with her own voice and had receipts to show how bad it was. I certainly don't want to down play the issues that women in tech face, but it's also well known that people of color frequently have different social and economic circumstances than white or white-presenting folks (and it's not me saying this -- she calls out in her book the casual anti-semitism she faced from folks who didn't know she is Jewish).