3 ms·

Of course. Many people are not supporting a starving family, many people can take other jobs. I'm only trying to demonstrate there is a grey area. > But if we'

Of course. Many people are not supporting a starving family, many people can take other jobs. I'm only trying to demonstrate there is a grey area. > But if we're talking about journalists' ability to protect the information and identity of their confidential sources (again, a bar that you set), of all the options available, Gmail is not a pretty good one. I disagree. Gmail is an incredibly secure mail service and is a fine way to perform some communications - in particular, while something like Signal may be ideal, Gmail can have a much better UX around initial contact. Even if it weren't, it really doesn't matter, journalists do use it and they are targeted. But again, journalists are just an example, there are hundreds of millions of people using gmail - protecting them is something one could very easily consider to be ethical.

cookie_monsta 4y ago
> I'm only trying to demonstrate there is a grey area I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families. I'm not disputing that finding another job is a PITA. The grey area that I am trying to demonstrate is that every single Googler has more career options than "continue working for Google" or "let my family starve to death" > Gmail can have a much better UX around initial contact I have no idea what this means. An email is an email, no? > there are hundreds of millions of people using gmail No argument there. And I'm not saying that securing their inboxes isn't worthy work. My original comment was directed to the hypothetical journalists who use Gmail for professional communication - it had nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of other users. They should be using E2E encrypted communications with confidential sources and encouraging their sources to do the same. That's just part of being a responsible professional in that line of work.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  > I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families Literally just the very post before by you: > What I am saying is that there are people out there legitimately doing jobs because the only other option is their family going hungry. Silicon Valley software engineers are not in that category. This is incoherent. Whatever point you're trying to make is not coming across and doesn't seem important. The initial point I made was that "is anyone excited to work for Google?" is a hilariously naive point of view both in terms of the obvious fact that they often are, and also in terms of a basic ethical framework. I gave examples. Nitpicking them isn't important because there are a million other examples.
  - cookie_monsta 4y ago
    > This is incoherent. I'm sorry you're having trouble following this. I agree that the original "nobody could be excited about working for Google" is a weird and most likely wrong assertion. But answering it by inventing a sub-class of Google workers whose only options are a) keep working for Google or b) let their family STARVE TO DEATH is not very helpful. My original comment: I suspect that if you work at Google you have plenty of other career options before reaching the point where your family has to starve. really said it all. You have every right to be contrary, but it's more interesting if you stick to the topic and don't introduce fanciful edge cases. Yes, there are Googlers who are supporting their families. No, that is not their only option. Maybe there are journalists using Gmail for what should be confidential communication. No, they should not be doing that. Call that nitpicking if you like, that's fine. They seem like simple, fundamental points to me. This thing that you've done a couple of times in this thread of refusing to see a very simple point and then complaining that it isn't "coming across" doesn't really do much to progress the discussion.

cookie_monsta 4y ago

> I'm only trying to demonstrate there is a grey area I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families. I'm not disputing that finding another job is a PITA. The grey area that I am trying to demonstrate is that every single Googler has more career options than "continue working for Google" or "let my family starve to death" > Gmail can have a much better UX around initial contact I have no idea what this means. An email is an email, no? > there are hundreds of millions of people using gmail No argument there. And I'm not saying that securing their inboxes isn't worthy work. My original comment was directed to the hypothetical journalists who use Gmail for professional communication - it had nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of other users. They should be using E2E encrypted communications with confidential sources and encouraging their sources to do the same. That's just part of being a responsible professional in that line of work.

staticassertion 4y ago
> I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families Literally just the very post before by you: > What I am saying is that there are people out there legitimately doing jobs because the only other option is their family going hungry. Silicon Valley software engineers are not in that category. This is incoherent. Whatever point you're trying to make is not coming across and doesn't seem important. The initial point I made was that "is anyone excited to work for Google?" is a hilariously naive point of view both in terms of the obvious fact that they often are, and also in terms of a basic ethical framework. I gave examples. Nitpicking them isn't important because there are a million other examples.
- cookie_monsta 4y ago
  > This is incoherent. I'm sorry you're having trouble following this. I agree that the original "nobody could be excited about working for Google" is a weird and most likely wrong assertion. But answering it by inventing a sub-class of Google workers whose only options are a) keep working for Google or b) let their family STARVE TO DEATH is not very helpful. My original comment: I suspect that if you work at Google you have plenty of other career options before reaching the point where your family has to starve. really said it all. You have every right to be contrary, but it's more interesting if you stick to the topic and don't introduce fanciful edge cases. Yes, there are Googlers who are supporting their families. No, that is not their only option. Maybe there are journalists using Gmail for what should be confidential communication. No, they should not be doing that. Call that nitpicking if you like, that's fine. They seem like simple, fundamental points to me. This thing that you've done a couple of times in this thread of refusing to see a very simple point and then complaining that it isn't "coming across" doesn't really do much to progress the discussion.