4 ms·

Google is gagging user advocates

82 points by timf 15y ago

mikecane 15y ago
That they would do that to Liz is ... disappointing. (Otherwise biting tongue, for her sake.)
rachelbythebay 15y ago
What a ridiculous mess. It would not surprise me if it's come to this. When all else fails, whip out the lawyercats. How much will it take to make people quit(quitquit)?
- mtklein 15y ago
  Nice shibboleths!
- esrauch 15y ago
  I'd be surprised if lawyers were involved, even if the 'gag' description is accurate. The most likely 'gag' would probably just the woman's boss pulling her aside and saying "you can say anything you want internally, but when you badmouth the company in public you are hurting the company". I mean we really have no idea, but it seems far far more likely something like that occurred than Google sending a formal C&D to one of it's own employees.
  - rachelbythebay 15y ago
    One might say that being evil is hurting the company more, especially when knowledgeable employees quit rather than being associated with such actions. People who push back on such things actually care about the company they joined, not the company it has become.
    - rmrm 15y ago
      so offering a web service, any web service -- that requires using real names is evil. Now and forever. Is that right? Are you sure it's not just a service that some people won't want to use, because of this design decision? Or is it fundamentally evil to offer a web service some people might not want to use? I have no argument whatsoever that services should not exist that not only allow pseudonyms but where pseudonyms are embraced and expected. I love many of these services, and would defend their right to exist to no end. But I do not even remotely understand what seems to be a prevailing argument here that there must not exist any service based on real names. All of the argument in favor of pseudonym is really an argument in favor of those types of services existing -- which they do, in spades. Millions of them. No one is, or has, killed anonymous or pseudonymous interaction on the web. No one is, or has, hindered the ability of a person seeking such cover from the ability to publish anything on the web and to be found. Its an additional service offering, its not a subtraction of what already exists (rampant, multitudinous options for anonymous and pseudonymous posting which can and are being used by folks seeking avenues for anonymous and pseudonymous posting and sharing and community building).
      - rachelbythebay 15y ago
        Offering a web service and ignoring the pleas of those who know a minefield when they see one is evil. Launching it anyway despite unprecedented pushback is evil. Pretending it's somehow new and unexpected, like wow, we didn't think anyone would care... is evil. Also, right now, you're right, this doesn't matter. You can just ignore their dumb little toy and go on with life. Trouble is, future services are planned to be integrated. That means you either suck it up and create a profile (thus running into the Real Name fiasco) or opt out of anything which needs one. Using one thing to force people to do another thing. Where have we seen this before? If you're inside the company and you care about this stuff, you're probably freaking out because it reflects on you, too. From a business perspective outside of the company, it's brilliant. It means there will be a lot of people looking for alternative ways to do things where they were previously relying on the big G since it was good enough. I guess I should just shut up and let them keep digging that hole. It'll mean more business for the rest of us.
        15y ago
RexRollman 15y ago
I like Google and I really hope this isn't true.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
juiceandjuice 15y ago
I can't take this article seriously. That page and this post/article/whatever is a mess. It's like I'm reading forwarded emails from my mom.
brettcvz 15y ago
I would imagine a large part of this is that if someone launches a lawsuit, anything said will be twisted into an admission of guilt or at least knowledge of the offense.
- Hov 15y ago
  A lawsuit over what in this instance? Seems to me the gag is in place simply to prevent any more bad press, which is understandable. You can't have your own employees disagreeing with company policy in public.
fpgeek 15y ago
The title should be clear that the advocate or advocates in question here are Google employees. That doesn't make any gag right, but it is vital context.
- carbonica 15y ago
  And it should also be clear that it's not even clear any gag orders have occurred. The entire evidence to support this thesis is: > @Skud: ok, unless someone tells me otherwise, it looks like google employees who don’t support the names policy have been gagged. #nymwars > @Skud: @lizthegrey this is your chance to tell me i’m wrong, btw. Somebody not responding to your tweet is hardly proof employees are being gagged. Here's one idea: maybe Liz doesn't want to be the center of attention on this anymore.
  - starwed 15y ago
    Maybe I misread this, but this seemed the basis for assuming it was a gag order: >On July 25th (four days ago) she stopped posting on the subject altogether. Looking at her stream, though, I see that she did post, without any comment, a link to a Wikipedia article talking about gag orders. Further, the poster says liz is a friend, so it seems likely they'd get some response to a direct question if she wasn't gagged.
    - yanw 15y ago
      Maybe she just got tired of discussing this subject, as opposed to the author who seems to be on a crusade.
      - reemrevnivek 15y ago
        She posted 46 articles on the subject in less than a month. If you don't call that a crusade, I don't know what is. Of course, if you're suggesting that she simply got burnt out, that's a possibility. I could understand decreasing the number of essays written on the subject, but responding to a tweet seems like something that she'd do, given her previous crusade.
orangecat 15y ago
I wonder if this is related to Steve Yegge standing up in front of the entire Internet and saying that Google+ is a huge waste of time. That happened on the 25th as well, and could easily have annoyed a VP to the point of prohibiting negative comments by Google employees.
badclient 15y ago
Google+ on its present trajectory is headed to the deadpool.
yanw 15y ago
This is getting silly and borderline paranoid. I think this whole pseudonym thing is an overreaction, and an unfair criticism to an incomplete project. As for the this 'gag' stuff she offers no proof and seems like she is just conveniently picking narrative to complement her disapproval. Just let it go already.
- nknight 15y ago
  1. When a project is incomplete is _exactly_ the time to raise a fuss about something being wrong. Acting like we should excuse Google because it's incomplete is completely missing the point. 2. The gag stuff sounds pretty well confirmed by Skud's contacts at Google, a company she was until very recently employed at and knows a lot more about the internal machinations of. Where do you work, exactly? (And by the way, why are you posting under a pseudonym?)
  - yanw 15y ago
    1. It must be in proportion, and not expect an immediate fix specially since Google has valid reasons for their policy. 2. Still not a proof. And she could be interpreting other instructions as forcing a 'gag'. And me using a pseudonym here has nothing to do with anything Also having a misleading headline doesn't help validate the content of the post.
    - nknight 15y ago
      There are no valid reasons for this policy, and after weeks of criticism, Google ought to realize it. This would not be an "immediate fix", this would be a "month or more in coming" fix. As for "proof", either you haven't read Skud's entire post, or you're just calling her a liar. Oddly enough, I trust her up-front statements more than your vague intimations. You using a pseudonym has a lot to do with the present issue. The entire issue revolves around pseudonyms. You apparently have no objection to forcing people not to use pseudonyms, but use one yourself. I think that's needs to be explored if you're to have any credibility in a debate about Google's policy on pseudonyms. You still haven't said where you work. The headline isn't at all misleading. It is slightly vague, but the vagueness is resolved simply by clicking the link. Vague headlines are nothing new.
sfgfdhgfdshdhhd 15y ago
This is what Hacker News becomes when somebody talks crap about Google: http://www.maniacworld.com/stop-picking-on-britney.html http://www.maniacworld.com/stop-picking-on-britney.html
jrockway 15y ago
This sounds like a classic conspiracy theory. How exactly could Google defend itself, even if it wanted to? Citizen: The government is dissecting aliens! Government: Uh, no we're not. Citizen: Further proof that you are! This sounds a lot like that.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

82 points by timf 15y ago

That they would do that to Liz is ... disappointing. (Otherwise biting tongue, for her sake.)

What a ridiculous mess. It would not surprise me if it's come to this. When all else fails, whip out the lawyercats. How much will it take to make people quit(quitquit)?

mtklein 15y ago
Nice shibboleths!
esrauch 15y ago
I'd be surprised if lawyers were involved, even if the 'gag' description is accurate. The most likely 'gag' would probably just the woman's boss pulling her aside and saying "you can say anything you want internally, but when you badmouth the company in public you are hurting the company". I mean we really have no idea, but it seems far far more likely something like that occurred than Google sending a formal C&D to one of it's own employees.
- rachelbythebay 15y ago
  One might say that being evil is hurting the company more, especially when knowledgeable employees quit rather than being associated with such actions. People who push back on such things actually care about the company they joined, not the company it has become.
  - rmrm 15y ago
    so offering a web service, any web service -- that requires using real names is evil. Now and forever. Is that right? Are you sure it's not just a service that some people won't want to use, because of this design decision? Or is it fundamentally evil to offer a web service some people might not want to use? I have no argument whatsoever that services should not exist that not only allow pseudonyms but where pseudonyms are embraced and expected. I love many of these services, and would defend their right to exist to no end. But I do not even remotely understand what seems to be a prevailing argument here that there must not exist any service based on real names. All of the argument in favor of pseudonym is really an argument in favor of those types of services existing -- which they do, in spades. Millions of them. No one is, or has, killed anonymous or pseudonymous interaction on the web. No one is, or has, hindered the ability of a person seeking such cover from the ability to publish anything on the web and to be found. Its an additional service offering, its not a subtraction of what already exists (rampant, multitudinous options for anonymous and pseudonymous posting which can and are being used by folks seeking avenues for anonymous and pseudonymous posting and sharing and community building).
    - rachelbythebay 15y ago
      Offering a web service and ignoring the pleas of those who know a minefield when they see one is evil. Launching it anyway despite unprecedented pushback is evil. Pretending it's somehow new and unexpected, like wow, we didn't think anyone would care... is evil. Also, right now, you're right, this doesn't matter. You can just ignore their dumb little toy and go on with life. Trouble is, future services are planned to be integrated. That means you either suck it up and create a profile (thus running into the Real Name fiasco) or opt out of anything which needs one. Using one thing to force people to do another thing. Where have we seen this before? If you're inside the company and you care about this stuff, you're probably freaking out because it reflects on you, too. From a business perspective outside of the company, it's brilliant. It means there will be a lot of people looking for alternative ways to do things where they were previously relying on the big G since it was good enough. I guess I should just shut up and let them keep digging that hole. It'll mean more business for the rest of us.
      - 15y ago

RexRollman 15y ago

I like Google and I really hope this isn't true.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

juiceandjuice 15y ago

I can't take this article seriously. That page and this post/article/whatever is a mess. It's like I'm reading forwarded emails from my mom.

brettcvz 15y ago

I would imagine a large part of this is that if someone launches a lawsuit, anything said will be twisted into an admission of guilt or at least knowledge of the offense.

Hov 15y ago
A lawsuit over what in this instance? Seems to me the gag is in place simply to prevent any more bad press, which is understandable. You can't have your own employees disagreeing with company policy in public.

fpgeek 15y ago

The title should be clear that the advocate or advocates in question here are Google employees. That doesn't make any gag right, but it is vital context.

carbonica 15y ago
And it should also be clear that it's not even clear any gag orders have occurred. The entire evidence to support this thesis is: > @Skud: ok, unless someone tells me otherwise, it looks like google employees who don’t support the names policy have been gagged. #nymwars > @Skud: @lizthegrey this is your chance to tell me i’m wrong, btw. Somebody not responding to your tweet is hardly proof employees are being gagged. Here's one idea: maybe Liz doesn't want to be the center of attention on this anymore.
- starwed 15y ago
  Maybe I misread this, but this seemed the basis for assuming it was a gag order: >On July 25th (four days ago) she stopped posting on the subject altogether. Looking at her stream, though, I see that she did post, without any comment, a link to a Wikipedia article talking about gag orders. Further, the poster says liz is a friend, so it seems likely they'd get some response to a direct question if she wasn't gagged.
  - yanw 15y ago
    Maybe she just got tired of discussing this subject, as opposed to the author who seems to be on a crusade.
    - reemrevnivek 15y ago
      She posted 46 articles on the subject in less than a month. If you don't call that a crusade, I don't know what is. Of course, if you're suggesting that she simply got burnt out, that's a possibility. I could understand decreasing the number of essays written on the subject, but responding to a tweet seems like something that she'd do, given her previous crusade.

orangecat 15y ago

I wonder if this is related to Steve Yegge standing up in front of the entire Internet and saying that Google+ is a huge waste of time. That happened on the 25th as well, and could easily have annoyed a VP to the point of prohibiting negative comments by Google employees.

badclient 15y ago

Google+ on its present trajectory is headed to the deadpool.

yanw 15y ago

This is getting silly and borderline paranoid. I think this whole pseudonym thing is an overreaction, and an unfair criticism to an incomplete project. As for the this 'gag' stuff she offers no proof and seems like she is just conveniently picking narrative to complement her disapproval. Just let it go already.

nknight 15y ago
1. When a project is incomplete is _exactly_ the time to raise a fuss about something being wrong. Acting like we should excuse Google because it's incomplete is completely missing the point. 2. The gag stuff sounds pretty well confirmed by Skud's contacts at Google, a company she was until very recently employed at and knows a lot more about the internal machinations of. Where do you work, exactly? (And by the way, why are you posting under a pseudonym?)
- yanw 15y ago
  1. It must be in proportion, and not expect an immediate fix specially since Google has valid reasons for their policy. 2. Still not a proof. And she could be interpreting other instructions as forcing a 'gag'. And me using a pseudonym here has nothing to do with anything Also having a misleading headline doesn't help validate the content of the post.
  - nknight 15y ago
    There are no valid reasons for this policy, and after weeks of criticism, Google ought to realize it. This would not be an "immediate fix", this would be a "month or more in coming" fix. As for "proof", either you haven't read Skud's entire post, or you're just calling her a liar. Oddly enough, I trust her up-front statements more than your vague intimations. You using a pseudonym has a lot to do with the present issue. The entire issue revolves around pseudonyms. You apparently have no objection to forcing people not to use pseudonyms, but use one yourself. I think that's needs to be explored if you're to have any credibility in a debate about Google's policy on pseudonyms. You still haven't said where you work. The headline isn't at all misleading. It is slightly vague, but the vagueness is resolved simply by clicking the link. Vague headlines are nothing new.

sfgfdhgfdshdhhd 15y ago

This is what Hacker News becomes when somebody talks crap about Google: http://www.maniacworld.com/stop-picking-on-britney.html http://www.maniacworld.com/stop-picking-on-britney.html

jrockway 15y ago

This sounds like a classic conspiracy theory. How exactly could Google defend itself, even if it wanted to? Citizen: The government is dissecting aliens! Government: Uh, no we're not. Citizen: Further proof that you are! This sounds a lot like that.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]