4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoMaybe 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 agoMaybe she just got tired of discussing this subject, as opposed to the author who seems to be on a crusade.
- reemrevnivek 15y agoShe 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.
- starwed 15y agoHeh, speaking of crusades: http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=yanw http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=yanw
- orangecat 15y agoThis seems pretty definitive: https://plus.google.com/106912596786226524817/posts/6SBH6NxDcgq https://plus.google.com/106912596786226524817/posts/6SBH6NxD...
- carbonica 15y agoThat sounds like an incredibly permissive company policy to me. Not a "gag order" with all the associated connotations.
- xnxn 15y agoAccording to the stub in the URL, that was even the original title of the post.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- yanw 15y agoThe 'gag' in question doesn't apply specifically to this matter, employees usually aren't allowed to discuss this sort of stuff, they let PR handle it.
- bonch 15y agoAnd so the usual defense of Google begins in the Hacker News comments. Let it begin.