4 ms·

That's a very optimistic take on how new generations perceive the ethics surrounding confidentiality. Are you really _baffled_ by this? I understand that it's a

That's a very optimistic take on how new generations perceive the ethics surrounding confidentiality. Are you really _baffled_ by this? I understand that it's a common position, but it's a position that is so clearly tainted by the conflicts of interest between employer and employee. And a keen awareness of those conflicting interests _only_ serves to better an employee's ability to serve themselves best in a capitalist economy. I'm not saying you are wrong per se. But if you don't see why employees are willing to act in this way, you don't see how employees feel about being trapped in a system where no matter how much you are paid - you are ultimately making someone else more.

khazhoux 4y ago
I totally get why people act this way. Because it's Very Important That Everyone Knows What I Think. But there is no inequity or conflict of interest here. None of that about being trapped in a capitalist economy is to the point here. He has probably a couple million dollars in his bank account that wasn't there before, and the deal was to not talk publicly about internals (which includes promotions process, internal motivations and decision-making, etc).
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You don't think there's any inequity between somebody with a couple million in the bank and google, or any conflict of interest between my desire to talk about my work and my employer's desire that I do not? Your position is valid enough without being willfully obtuse.
  - khazhoux 4y ago
    Once you agree to not talk about it (as part of the employment terms), then there is zero conflict of interest. "Yes, I agree to not share internal info, in exchange for this money. And by the way, I will still share internal info, because inequity."
    - bbor 4y ago
      You're thinking about employment contracts like an abstract economic exchange between two free parties, which is very micro. Try thinking about it instead like a bargain with the (macro) devil. In other words, consider someone's perspective who has society split into two camps: the people who do all the work, and the corrupt elite that make their living through theft and oppression. In such a world, signing a contract with an employer (i.e. capitalist i.e. elite) is more of a practical step than a sacrosanct bond. There's a level of "what's reasonable" and "what legally enforceable" beyond the basic "never break a promise" level you're working at, IMO. No ones endorsing publishing trade secrets randomly, but you're treating all disclosures like they're equivalent.
- packetslave 4y ago
  Yet for some reason OP and everyone here are supposed to care what YOU think?
  - khazhoux 4y ago
    I'm not suggesting people shouldn't post thoughts and opinions. This is about whether a personal desire to self-express, should override their explicit prior commitment/promise not to do so.

khazhoux 4y ago

I totally get why people act this way. Because it's Very Important That Everyone Knows What I Think. But there is no inequity or conflict of interest here. None of that about being trapped in a capitalist economy is to the point here. He has probably a couple million dollars in his bank account that wasn't there before, and the deal was to not talk publicly about internals (which includes promotions process, internal motivations and decision-making, etc).

pessimizer 4y ago
You don't think there's any inequity between somebody with a couple million in the bank and google, or any conflict of interest between my desire to talk about my work and my employer's desire that I do not? Your position is valid enough without being willfully obtuse.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  Once you agree to not talk about it (as part of the employment terms), then there is zero conflict of interest. "Yes, I agree to not share internal info, in exchange for this money. And by the way, I will still share internal info, because inequity."
  - bbor 4y ago
    You're thinking about employment contracts like an abstract economic exchange between two free parties, which is very micro. Try thinking about it instead like a bargain with the (macro) devil. In other words, consider someone's perspective who has society split into two camps: the people who do all the work, and the corrupt elite that make their living through theft and oppression. In such a world, signing a contract with an employer (i.e. capitalist i.e. elite) is more of a practical step than a sacrosanct bond. There's a level of "what's reasonable" and "what legally enforceable" beyond the basic "never break a promise" level you're working at, IMO. No ones endorsing publishing trade secrets randomly, but you're treating all disclosures like they're equivalent.
packetslave 4y ago
Yet for some reason OP and everyone here are supposed to care what YOU think?
- khazhoux 4y ago
  I'm not suggesting people shouldn't post thoughts and opinions. This is about whether a personal desire to self-express, should override their explicit prior commitment/promise not to do so.