17 ms·

When I was at IBM 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly, since there were plenty of competitors in the hardware space (HP, Sun, Dell, etc) and in the

by tytso 5y ago

When I was at IBM 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly, since there were plenty of competitors in the hardware space (HP, Sun, Dell, etc) and in the software space (Oracle, SAP, etc.) and in the Services space (Accenture, PwC, KPMG, etc.) employees still had to complete annual legal training that was very similar to what was described in the post. Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women." Instead they will tell their employees to focus on making life better for their customers. It's a much healthier way for product managers to focus, and what you might do if the goal is "crush/dominate the competition" is *not* the same than if the goal is delight the customer. So it's not just a messaging strategy to prevent embarassing e-mails from coming out at trial; it's a business strategy, too.

grecy 5y ago
Which is hilarious, because I remember very clearly when McDonald's was crushing Burger King and the head of McDonald's said, on the record, "You know what you do when your competitors are drowning. ... step on their head". I guess burger joints can't be monopolies.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Burger joints compete in the "fast food" market which also includes fried chicken joints, taco joints, and the like. They also have more broad competition from the "fast casual" market, "restaurant dining" market, and the "food" market. The question antitrust has historically asked here is the concentration, and the extent to which have they have pricing power.
Frost1x 5y ago
But do the means justify the ends? Most people understand that unethical behavior or concerning actions to get a desired 'good' result isn't acceptable. But the current approach is to mask the ends, the end goal may actually not be what we desire, e.g. corrupt monopolies leeching off society. But as long as we create approaches and incentive structures that get us to the same ends that are deemed acceptable, then it's just an "undesired side effect" we can handwave away, or so many managing businesses think. Both the ends and the means matter.
bogwog 5y ago
At what point does *market share* not become a KPI? At what point does market share become so irrelevant, that you stop tracking it altogether in your entire multibillion-dollar megacorp, and make your employees stop talking about it? Answer: When you become a monopoly (or are on your way there), and need to hide from regulators. That's the point where the market becomes irrelevant, so tracking market share is nothing more than a liability. The "improve life for customers" stuff is all fluff that you might read in a training manual alongside photos of happy employees playing ping pong at work.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> The "improve life for customers" stuff is all fluff that you might read in a training manual alongside photos of happy employees playing ping pong at work. I'd say Google is redefining the word "customers". What they really mean is users. Customers are traditionally those who pay for products or services. I'm sure Google also makes things easy for those who pay them, but that's not who they mean by "customers". If I'm not mistaken the GoogleSpeak word for "companies we extort money from to maintain relevance in search results" is probably "partners".
- ekianjo 5y ago
  if you create a product thats unique or defines a category you start by having a market share of 100 percent. Market share does not define monopolies. What defines monopolies is the absence of alternatives. Like you know, the postal service to send letters. funnily nobody talks about those.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    The economic definition of monopoly is 'price setter' as opposed to 'price taker'. The government actually defines that as 'market power'. But in order for it to be something 'anti trust' etc. then it's more complicated. Sherman Act, Section 2 [1] - definitely worth a read. [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
jollybean 5y ago
'Legal's job is much more about language than approach. They will require you not to say 'crush competitors' because it would be used as evidence. The issue 'make a better product vs. crush competitors' is usually a more of a strategic issue. Edit: it's not illegal to want to 'crush competitors' FYI the issue is the language that would point in a particular direction. The evidence of my point is Google's existence - I would argue it participates in a number of anti-competitive practices for which it's very smart legal team has made sure the language they use doesn't support legal scrutiny.
kens 5y ago
> 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly I think some historical background is necessary here. Nowadays IBM isn't a monopoly but during the 20th century, IBM was more or less a monopoly. IBM's antitrust problems go back to their 1936 consent decree and 1956 consent decree. IBM was subject to a huge antitrust case that went on from 1969 to 1982 as well as many other antitrust lawsuits. The first point is that of course IBM and other at-risk companies will have training to keep people from writing things that will cause antitrust problems. (Their antitrust case had 30 million pages of discovery.) Second, antitrust cases hinge on the "market" (as a legal term), so it's not surprising that Google wants employees to avoid using that word. In an antitrust case, each side will argue over what is "the market", and you don't want to lose the case because of a random email discussing the "market". Google's recommendation to say "Area" instead of "Market" hardly limits thought, but it makes a big different in antitrust. Third, I don't want to go all CLS, but antitrust law is pretty much incoherent and illogical. Even after the antitrust case against IBM ended (by fizzling out after 13 years), nobody agrees on whether IBM was violating antitrust laws or not.
- sidlls 5y ago
  No rational person is going to see “Area” in this context as anything but a synonym for “Market.”
  - pc86 5y ago
    Especially when Google is distributing documentation saying to use the word "Area" explicitly instead of "Market."
    - gugagore 5y ago
      IANAL but it seems that it would succeed in requiring an additional layer of argumentation that “area” is code for “market”. My rough sense is that nothing is trivial in cases like this, but how difficult would it be to argue this?
      - lugged 5y ago
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Here's Adam Curtis' brief history of Google's relationship to "the customer" (false label: advertisers are the customers, not search engine users) 1998 Idealism. "I think I want to make the world a better place." https://youtu.be/55jSx4pRZqI?t=1789s https://youtu.be/55jSx4pRZqI?t=1789s 2000 Disaster and desperation. VCs tell SB what Google must do. https://youtu.be/55jSx4pRZqI?t=2249s https://youtu.be/55jSx4pRZqI?t=2249s
- jollybean 5y ago
  Neither having a child out of wedlock or even with someone on staff, and, quoting Conan the Barbarian have anything to do with anything really. Sergei Brin pushed the company to invest in his wife's company, had an affair with a subordinate, and probably quotes some other funny things along the way, it might say 'something' but I'm not sure if it speaks to 'competence'. I'm not sure if this attack on the character of the companies, while maybe somewhat relevant, really speaks to the 'legal posture' of the companies.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  "The only thing in my head is a conviction that our fascination with modern technology and the internet may go very quickly. It doesn't mean the internet will disappear - but it will just become suddenly seen as mundane. And not threatening. And quite a lot of it a bit of a con." - Adam Curtis
twirlock 5y ago
Way to explain exactly what the fucking article said.
equality_1138 5y ago
Healthier way? This is wrong. First, to admit your goal is to crush your competitors is completely appropriate. That is the exact way the market is supposed to work. Thoughts about hiding this inherent part of any businesses strategy is, well, fine for lawyers, but essentially ignorant for engineers. Lawyers are not paid to make things, nor to develop your strategy. They are paid to manipulate laws and the truth. To write ethical issues off as lawyers just lawyering is a terrible way to approach business or technology.
- vasco 5y ago
  You can win a 100 meter race by having a goal of running sub 8 seconds, or you can win a race by having a goal of crushing the other athletes. It's up to you if during your training you're focused on the times versus on the other athletes. It's also up to you if during the race you're looking left and right to see how fast they're running or if you're just focused on going the fastest you can. I think this is the difference in approach that they were mentioning. Obviously you still defeat the competition as a byproduct of being the fastest, but they are very different approaches.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Except in the race, your goal is to be the first, not to eliminate your competition. On the market, your goal is literally to crush your competitors in any legally possible way. Making the best product is one way to do it, though not the most effective one. People seem to forget that the market, as a system of competing actors, doesn't care. It's like the lawnmower/Oracle mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It just doesn't give a damn. All the wealth any member of society enjoys is merely a side effect - the same way the motive force for a car is a side effect of combustion in the ICE. Gasoline doesn't give a damn about you being late for work, it only wants to violently oxidize. We make the market economy work the same way we make a car work - by carefully harnessing powerful forces that, inadequately constrained, are deadly.
throwaway201025 5y ago
> Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women." I don't think that's true. I work for Samsung and we talk about market share and competitors all the time. I mean, why shouldn't we? Being crystal clear is a very good step to achieve a goal. We need to be more honest.
- 2hatredboned 5y ago
  Somehow related Comic: > //s20.directupload.net/images/210825/v4dbak6h.png ^^ BTW: (Yesterday-News) "News For South African Looters As Samsung Moves To Block Stolen TVs..."
account42 5y ago
In other news: Googler doesn't see anything wrong with Google.
delusional 5y ago
I agree that others do the same, but the observation that vocabulary somewhat affects thought is still interesting. As an example, the sentence about "defensive rationale" didn't just reformulate the sentence, it completely changed the meaning. If people aren't allowed to talk about "crushing competition" they also can't think about it. If they can't think about it they also can't recognize it when it happens.
- dannyw 5y ago
  Trust me, every Google exec thinks hard about crushing competition. They just don't put it in writing.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    Do they? Googles competition is Facebook (advertising). But Google seems very wary about going into FB dominated areas (Google+ notwithstanding), and FB is very wary about going into Google areas (no FB phones or tablets). They kind of agree Google is the search/Android company, and FB is the social network company, and that way they can both sell ads. Even Reddit, Snapchat, and TikTok, FBs main competitors, were never “crushed.” There was never a full out assault on them. FBs attitude seemed to be to watch them, learn from them, and adopt their best practices.
- judge2020 5y ago
  The policy isn't to avoid crushing competition or becoming a monopoly in some market, it's to avoid specifically setting out to do so. Unless Google intentionally slows development/cuts resources, the amount of capital and level of talent they put into products makes "make the product better for users" a plan very likely to result in naturally taking over the market.
  - smhost 5y ago
    That's the policy that the Biden team is trying to change. Following from what you said, do you expect Google to change its behavior once the natural monopoly policy loophole gets fixed?
ajb 5y ago
Yes and no. Via market share, competition amplifies the rewards of being better. if you make your product 1% better than the competition, you might go from 30% to 70% market share. But to do so, you have to actually gain the market share. You can't just "build it and they will come"; in many industries, someone has to go out and win the market after the product is built. And so a lot of people in companies are really, really, really, motivated to gain market share. That's what increases their share option value, and gets their bonuses. And that's what tempts companies towards lock-in and all the rest.
yakubin 5y ago
> Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women." Instead they will tell their employees to focus on making life better for their customers. The lawn mower would like to have a word with you: <https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2040 https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2040>
- georgeecollins 5y ago
  That is an amazing talk! Thank you for sharing.
- CrazyCatDog 5y ago
  Reference is not until about the 38:30 mark, link starts sooner but provides greatly amplifying context!
smhost 5y ago
What exactly is the logic here, that because IBM used to do the same thing Google is doing, and because IBM was not a monopoly, that we should be okay with Google behaving this way?
- simcop2387 5y ago
  The logic is that this isn't a sign of google being a monopoly and that it has more implications than just being there to avoid anti-trust actions.
  - smhost 5y ago
    That doesn't follow. You can read it in the exact opposite direction, that every other company culture is already behaving as if it is a monopoly.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      It's much more simple once you realize that 'language is not reality'. People can use all sorts of language, colloquially, and it can be interpreted in many ways. You could absolutely use language within the company like 'crush the competition' wherein the culture is fully product oriented, great quality, support etc. and 'win the market'. That's perfectly legal and frankly ethical. Legal's job is to protect from scrutiny and litigation, in which case, they will, among other things, say 'don't use this language'. Because it could be used as a kind of evidence, even if it's totally contextualized and misunderstood. They will also obviously advise the CEO and product leadership on materially illegal activities, but it's unlikely that rank and file are going to hear about that. For example, colluding with your industry partners on hiring practices ... you're not going to be privy to that. If the company is not getting sued, legal is doing it's job. The rest of the equation mostly up to the rest of the executive team.
      - smhost 5y ago
        "Language is not reality" is the problem at stake, because language is really how people and organizations think. Language structures the field of possible self-justifications, and it's the ruler against which behaviors are measured. But, like you said, the fact that monopoly-related language is prohibited doesn't change reality. All the prohibition does is that it stops the organization's (and regulators') ability to measure its behavior against possible self-justifications. It's a strange legal technology.
zeteo 5y ago
Public relations has been around for a hundred years now. It shouldn't be news to anyone that large companies are careful with phrasing things and have full time employees devoted to the nuances of messaging. And yes, when armies of lawyers are routinely descending on your internal communications then it sucks but PR-speak has to become the norm for all. Most people don't like it, but the consequences of not doing it are even worse.

by tytso 5y ago

grecy 5y ago

Which is hilarious, because I remember very clearly when McDonald's was crushing Burger King and the head of McDonald's said, on the record, "You know what you do when your competitors are drowning. ... step on their head". I guess burger joints can't be monopolies.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
Burger joints compete in the "fast food" market which also includes fried chicken joints, taco joints, and the like. They also have more broad competition from the "fast casual" market, "restaurant dining" market, and the "food" market. The question antitrust has historically asked here is the concentration, and the extent to which have they have pricing power.

Frost1x 5y ago

But do the means justify the ends? Most people understand that unethical behavior or concerning actions to get a desired 'good' result isn't acceptable. But the current approach is to mask the ends, the end goal may actually not be what we desire, e.g. corrupt monopolies leeching off society. But as long as we create approaches and incentive structures that get us to the same ends that are deemed acceptable, then it's just an "undesired side effect" we can handwave away, or so many managing businesses think. Both the ends and the means matter.

bogwog 5y ago

At what point does *market share* not become a KPI? At what point does market share become so irrelevant, that you stop tracking it altogether in your entire multibillion-dollar megacorp, and make your employees stop talking about it? Answer: When you become a monopoly (or are on your way there), and need to hide from regulators. That's the point where the market becomes irrelevant, so tracking market share is nothing more than a liability. The "improve life for customers" stuff is all fluff that you might read in a training manual alongside photos of happy employees playing ping pong at work.

phkahler 5y ago
>> The "improve life for customers" stuff is all fluff that you might read in a training manual alongside photos of happy employees playing ping pong at work. I'd say Google is redefining the word "customers". What they really mean is users. Customers are traditionally those who pay for products or services. I'm sure Google also makes things easy for those who pay them, but that's not who they mean by "customers". If I'm not mistaken the GoogleSpeak word for "companies we extort money from to maintain relevance in search results" is probably "partners".
ekianjo 5y ago
if you create a product thats unique or defines a category you start by having a market share of 100 percent. Market share does not define monopolies. What defines monopolies is the absence of alternatives. Like you know, the postal service to send letters. funnily nobody talks about those.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The economic definition of monopoly is 'price setter' as opposed to 'price taker'. The government actually defines that as 'market power'. But in order for it to be something 'anti trust' etc. then it's more complicated. Sherman Act, Section 2 [1] - definitely worth a read. [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

jollybean 5y ago

'Legal's job is much more about language than approach. They will require you not to say 'crush competitors' because it would be used as evidence. The issue 'make a better product vs. crush competitors' is usually a more of a strategic issue. Edit: it's not illegal to want to 'crush competitors' FYI the issue is the language that would point in a particular direction. The evidence of my point is Google's existence - I would argue it participates in a number of anti-competitive practices for which it's very smart legal team has made sure the language they use doesn't support legal scrutiny.

kens 5y ago

> 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly I think some historical background is necessary here. Nowadays IBM isn't a monopoly but during the 20th century, IBM was more or less a monopoly. IBM's antitrust problems go back to their 1936 consent decree and 1956 consent decree. IBM was subject to a huge antitrust case that went on from 1969 to 1982 as well as many other antitrust lawsuits. The first point is that of course IBM and other at-risk companies will have training to keep people from writing things that will cause antitrust problems. (Their antitrust case had 30 million pages of discovery.) Second, antitrust cases hinge on the "market" (as a legal term), so it's not surprising that Google wants employees to avoid using that word. In an antitrust case, each side will argue over what is "the market", and you don't want to lose the case because of a random email discussing the "market". Google's recommendation to say "Area" instead of "Market" hardly limits thought, but it makes a big different in antitrust. Third, I don't want to go all CLS, but antitrust law is pretty much incoherent and illogical. Even after the antitrust case against IBM ended (by fizzling out after 13 years), nobody agrees on whether IBM was violating antitrust laws or not.

sidlls 5y ago
No rational person is going to see “Area” in this context as anything but a synonym for “Market.”
- pc86 5y ago
  Especially when Google is distributing documentation saying to use the word "Area" explicitly instead of "Market."
  - gugagore 5y ago
    IANAL but it seems that it would succeed in requiring an additional layer of argumentation that “area” is code for “market”. My rough sense is that nothing is trivial in cases like this, but how difficult would it be to argue this?
    - lugged 5y ago

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

Here's Adam Curtis' brief history of Google's relationship to "the customer" (false label: advertisers are the customers, not search engine users) 1998 Idealism. "I think I want to make the world a better place." https://youtu.be/55jSx4pRZqI?t=1789s https://youtu.be/55jSx4pRZqI?t=1789s 2000 Disaster and desperation. VCs tell SB what Google must do. https://youtu.be/55jSx4pRZqI?t=2249s https://youtu.be/55jSx4pRZqI?t=2249s

jollybean 5y ago
Neither having a child out of wedlock or even with someone on staff, and, quoting Conan the Barbarian have anything to do with anything really. Sergei Brin pushed the company to invest in his wife's company, had an affair with a subordinate, and probably quotes some other funny things along the way, it might say 'something' but I'm not sure if it speaks to 'competence'. I'm not sure if this attack on the character of the companies, while maybe somewhat relevant, really speaks to the 'legal posture' of the companies.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
"The only thing in my head is a conviction that our fascination with modern technology and the internet may go very quickly. It doesn't mean the internet will disappear - but it will just become suddenly seen as mundane. And not threatening. And quite a lot of it a bit of a con." - Adam Curtis

twirlock 5y ago

Way to explain exactly what the fucking article said.

equality_1138 5y ago

Healthier way? This is wrong. First, to admit your goal is to crush your competitors is completely appropriate. That is the exact way the market is supposed to work. Thoughts about hiding this inherent part of any businesses strategy is, well, fine for lawyers, but essentially ignorant for engineers. Lawyers are not paid to make things, nor to develop your strategy. They are paid to manipulate laws and the truth. To write ethical issues off as lawyers just lawyering is a terrible way to approach business or technology.

vasco 5y ago
You can win a 100 meter race by having a goal of running sub 8 seconds, or you can win a race by having a goal of crushing the other athletes. It's up to you if during your training you're focused on the times versus on the other athletes. It's also up to you if during the race you're looking left and right to see how fast they're running or if you're just focused on going the fastest you can. I think this is the difference in approach that they were mentioning. Obviously you still defeat the competition as a byproduct of being the fastest, but they are very different approaches.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Except in the race, your goal is to be the first, not to eliminate your competition. On the market, your goal is literally to crush your competitors in any legally possible way. Making the best product is one way to do it, though not the most effective one. People seem to forget that the market, as a system of competing actors, doesn't care. It's like the lawnmower/Oracle mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It just doesn't give a damn. All the wealth any member of society enjoys is merely a side effect - the same way the motive force for a car is a side effect of combustion in the ICE. Gasoline doesn't give a damn about you being late for work, it only wants to violently oxidize. We make the market economy work the same way we make a car work - by carefully harnessing powerful forces that, inadequately constrained, are deadly.

throwaway201025 5y ago

> Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women." I don't think that's true. I work for Samsung and we talk about market share and competitors all the time. I mean, why shouldn't we? Being crystal clear is a very good step to achieve a goal. We need to be more honest.

2hatredboned 5y ago
Somehow related Comic: > //s20.directupload.net/images/210825/v4dbak6h.png ^^ BTW: (Yesterday-News) "News For South African Looters As Samsung Moves To Block Stolen TVs..."

account42 5y ago

In other news: Googler doesn't see anything wrong with Google.

delusional 5y ago

I agree that others do the same, but the observation that vocabulary somewhat affects thought is still interesting. As an example, the sentence about "defensive rationale" didn't just reformulate the sentence, it completely changed the meaning. If people aren't allowed to talk about "crushing competition" they also can't think about it. If they can't think about it they also can't recognize it when it happens.

dannyw 5y ago
Trust me, every Google exec thinks hard about crushing competition. They just don't put it in writing.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Do they? Googles competition is Facebook (advertising). But Google seems very wary about going into FB dominated areas (Google+ notwithstanding), and FB is very wary about going into Google areas (no FB phones or tablets). They kind of agree Google is the search/Android company, and FB is the social network company, and that way they can both sell ads. Even Reddit, Snapchat, and TikTok, FBs main competitors, were never “crushed.” There was never a full out assault on them. FBs attitude seemed to be to watch them, learn from them, and adopt their best practices.
judge2020 5y ago
The policy isn't to avoid crushing competition or becoming a monopoly in some market, it's to avoid specifically setting out to do so. Unless Google intentionally slows development/cuts resources, the amount of capital and level of talent they put into products makes "make the product better for users" a plan very likely to result in naturally taking over the market.
- smhost 5y ago
  That's the policy that the Biden team is trying to change. Following from what you said, do you expect Google to change its behavior once the natural monopoly policy loophole gets fixed?

ajb 5y ago

Yes and no. Via market share, competition amplifies the rewards of being better. if you make your product 1% better than the competition, you might go from 30% to 70% market share. But to do so, you have to actually gain the market share. You can't just "build it and they will come"; in many industries, someone has to go out and win the market after the product is built. And so a lot of people in companies are really, really, really, motivated to gain market share. That's what increases their share option value, and gets their bonuses. And that's what tempts companies towards lock-in and all the rest.

yakubin 5y ago

> Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women." Instead they will tell their employees to focus on making life better for their customers. The lawn mower would like to have a word with you: <https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2040 https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2040>

georgeecollins 5y ago
That is an amazing talk! Thank you for sharing.
CrazyCatDog 5y ago
Reference is not until about the 38:30 mark, link starts sooner but provides greatly amplifying context!

smhost 5y ago

What exactly is the logic here, that because IBM used to do the same thing Google is doing, and because IBM was not a monopoly, that we should be okay with Google behaving this way?

simcop2387 5y ago
The logic is that this isn't a sign of google being a monopoly and that it has more implications than just being there to avoid anti-trust actions.
- smhost 5y ago
  That doesn't follow. You can read it in the exact opposite direction, that every other company culture is already behaving as if it is a monopoly.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It's much more simple once you realize that 'language is not reality'. People can use all sorts of language, colloquially, and it can be interpreted in many ways. You could absolutely use language within the company like 'crush the competition' wherein the culture is fully product oriented, great quality, support etc. and 'win the market'. That's perfectly legal and frankly ethical. Legal's job is to protect from scrutiny and litigation, in which case, they will, among other things, say 'don't use this language'. Because it could be used as a kind of evidence, even if it's totally contextualized and misunderstood. They will also obviously advise the CEO and product leadership on materially illegal activities, but it's unlikely that rank and file are going to hear about that. For example, colluding with your industry partners on hiring practices ... you're not going to be privy to that. If the company is not getting sued, legal is doing it's job. The rest of the equation mostly up to the rest of the executive team.
    - smhost 5y ago
      "Language is not reality" is the problem at stake, because language is really how people and organizations think. Language structures the field of possible self-justifications, and it's the ruler against which behaviors are measured. But, like you said, the fact that monopoly-related language is prohibited doesn't change reality. All the prohibition does is that it stops the organization's (and regulators') ability to measure its behavior against possible self-justifications. It's a strange legal technology.

zeteo 5y ago

Public relations has been around for a hundred years now. It shouldn't be news to anyone that large companies are careful with phrasing things and have full time employees devoted to the nuances of messaging. And yes, when armies of lawyers are routinely descending on your internal communications then it sucks but PR-speak has to become the norm for all. Most people don't like it, but the consequences of not doing it are even worse.