23 ms·

My unfortunate conclusion is that a large portion of people in this industry are either like this or wish they could get away with being like this. The amount o

by ATsch 5y ago

My unfortunate conclusion is that a large portion of people in this industry are either like this or wish they could get away with being like this. The amount of people who always reply about how they don't see any issues is enough proof of that.

truetraveller 5y ago
Nah. These accusations are exaggerated and without proof. Put yourself in his shoes. Would you like random internet people to accuse you with dramatized statements and/or exaggerations?
- krapp 5y ago
  If they're without proof, how do you know they're exaggerated and dramatized? Were you there? Do you have the proof to the contrary?
  - truetraveller 5y ago
    The burden of proof is on the claimant. And if your gonna post a sensationalist article about it to the public, you better provide proof to the public. Don't just do character assassination on another fellow human.
    - krapp 5y ago
      You're the one claiming the story is exaggerated, dramatized, sensationalist and now character assassination. This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof." And if there were, you're clearly not willing to carry it yourself.
      - truetraveller 5y ago
        Yes, I am also claiming something. I am claiming exaggeration. My proof is the article, and I would rightfully assume they provided the strongest reasons for him being a bully there, I do not see bullying. I am not the court, and I don't expect to know the fine details, but I need to the know the high-level points. I do not find these. This is not Soviet-era Russia. If your going to be public about a person's guilt, you gotta give high-level evidence.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - s7atic 5y ago
        > This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof." That's exactly the problem with news publications like this; they are extrajudicial. They throw away the right to due process. And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible. There are also important second order effects from legitimizing this rhetoric. A democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large. In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments. I cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate.
        krapp 5y ago
        >And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible. A promotion and a raise? The horror. > democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large. It's weird, Hacker News is usually extreme in its defense of absolute freedom of speech and the press, especially the freedom of the press to report negatively on people in positions of power. But when someone writes an article on a Google employee that they don't like, it's "destabilizing our society at large" and violates "basic legal principles." Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes? >In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments. What defamation? What punishment? He got a promotion. He was punished with money and power and being in line for CEO. > cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate. Are you trying to make this "cancel culture" now? This has nothing to do with "today's social media climate." There was no Twitter mob calling for Mustafa Suleyman's head, there were internal complaints made by employees.
        SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        The underlying idea I think you're missing is that personnel disputes just shouldn't be litigated through the media. There's no reliable information that can be gained and no productive discussion that can be had; the only possible outcome is to feed our confirmation biases and provide a platform to get mad. For example, you mention: > Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes? But lots of people went to the mat for Gebru and Mitchell! And many more were willing to provide an assumption of good faith without necessarily taking their side. You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people. The article has tricked you into getting angry at phantoms and guesswork.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Here's a fun one: > "Employees said Suleyman encouraged them to use private chat groups on Signal and Telegram for work conversations, some of which were set up to automatically delete messages after a set period. Employees were also on occasion asked to delete messages from their phones, a former employee said. They were also told to notify the group once they had done so." The burden of proof is on the claimant, sure. But if your boss forces you to delete the evidence, the stakes are that much higher.
      - joebob42 5y ago
        Google makes all employees do this, for whatever it's worth. I think this may just be kinda standard for corporate stuff. (Not telegram, but the self destructing messages)
        peakaboo 5y ago
        It's not kind of standard. Are you mad?
        rsynnott 5y ago
        I think the odd bit here is the encouragement to use messaging systems out of the employer's control for work stuff.
        shard972 5y ago
        then google is suspect
        ewalk153 5y ago
        That seems odd for corporate communications at a publicly traded company.
cutemonster 5y ago
In addition to that, I wonder if a few are employees at that company, and don't want to dislike their bosses or workplace (and then defend that weird exec instead)

by ATsch 5y ago

truetraveller 5y ago

Nah. These accusations are exaggerated and without proof. Put yourself in his shoes. Would you like random internet people to accuse you with dramatized statements and/or exaggerations?

krapp 5y ago
If they're without proof, how do you know they're exaggerated and dramatized? Were you there? Do you have the proof to the contrary?
- truetraveller 5y ago
  The burden of proof is on the claimant. And if your gonna post a sensationalist article about it to the public, you better provide proof to the public. Don't just do character assassination on another fellow human.
  - krapp 5y ago
    You're the one claiming the story is exaggerated, dramatized, sensationalist and now character assassination. This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof." And if there were, you're clearly not willing to carry it yourself.
    - truetraveller 5y ago
      Yes, I am also claiming something. I am claiming exaggeration. My proof is the article, and I would rightfully assume they provided the strongest reasons for him being a bully there, I do not see bullying. I am not the court, and I don't expect to know the fine details, but I need to the know the high-level points. I do not find these. This is not Soviet-era Russia. If your going to be public about a person's guilt, you gotta give high-level evidence.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - s7atic 5y ago
      > This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof." That's exactly the problem with news publications like this; they are extrajudicial. They throw away the right to due process. And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible. There are also important second order effects from legitimizing this rhetoric. A democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large. In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments. I cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate.
      - krapp 5y ago
        >And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible. A promotion and a raise? The horror. > democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large. It's weird, Hacker News is usually extreme in its defense of absolute freedom of speech and the press, especially the freedom of the press to report negatively on people in positions of power. But when someone writes an article on a Google employee that they don't like, it's "destabilizing our society at large" and violates "basic legal principles." Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes? >In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments. What defamation? What punishment? He got a promotion. He was punished with money and power and being in line for CEO. > cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate. Are you trying to make this "cancel culture" now? This has nothing to do with "today's social media climate." There was no Twitter mob calling for Mustafa Suleyman's head, there were internal complaints made by employees.
        SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        The underlying idea I think you're missing is that personnel disputes just shouldn't be litigated through the media. There's no reliable information that can be gained and no productive discussion that can be had; the only possible outcome is to feed our confirmation biases and provide a platform to get mad. For example, you mention: > Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes? But lots of people went to the mat for Gebru and Mitchell! And many more were willing to provide an assumption of good faith without necessarily taking their side. You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people. The article has tricked you into getting angry at phantoms and guesswork.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Here's a fun one: > "Employees said Suleyman encouraged them to use private chat groups on Signal and Telegram for work conversations, some of which were set up to automatically delete messages after a set period. Employees were also on occasion asked to delete messages from their phones, a former employee said. They were also told to notify the group once they had done so." The burden of proof is on the claimant, sure. But if your boss forces you to delete the evidence, the stakes are that much higher.
    - joebob42 5y ago
      Google makes all employees do this, for whatever it's worth. I think this may just be kinda standard for corporate stuff. (Not telegram, but the self destructing messages)
      - peakaboo 5y ago
        It's not kind of standard. Are you mad?
      - rsynnott 5y ago
        I think the odd bit here is the encouragement to use messaging systems out of the employer's control for work stuff.
      - shard972 5y ago
        then google is suspect
      - ewalk153 5y ago
        That seems odd for corporate communications at a publicly traded company.

cutemonster 5y ago

In addition to that, I wonder if a few are employees at that company, and don't want to dislike their bosses or workplace (and then defend that weird exec instead)