4 ms·
Your second context is a bad idea. If you truly want to avoid monopolistic behavior, then you want to encourage your employees to talk about that behavior plain
by thomastjeffery 3y ago
Your second context is a bad idea. If you truly want to avoid monopolistic behavior, then you want to encourage your employees to talk about that behavior plainly; so that when they do attempt something monopolistic, you will know about it and react.
- bagels 3y agoMaybe ineffective, but it seems like simply asking people not to use these words isn't necessarily a sign of covering up crimes.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoIt's not like this is where the whole case started: the context is that Google is being sued for monopolistic behavior!
- lsaferite 3y agoRegardless of guilt or not, using this kind of training as evidence against them seems asinine. If you don't have clear evidence and need to resort to this to try to win your case, why are you even filing the case?
- bagels 3y agoWell, I would hope this is just one small piece.
- lsaferite 3y agoMy point is that it shouldn't *be* a piece of evidence, at least not for the Prosecution. Maybe the Defense could raise it as an example of them trying to be mindful of monopolistic behaviors and prevent them from taking root.
- gipp 3y agoBut then you still have the original problem: it's illegal to say the words, but it's also illegal to tell people not to say the words? You already know that there's explicit precedent that these words are considered indicative of illegal behavior, and you're just supposed to ignore that information in your effort to comply with the law?
- thomastjeffery 3y ago> it's illegal to say the words No, it absolutely is not. The words themselves are in no way whatsoever at issue here. The focus is on the context those words exist in.
- gipp 3y agoThey weren't used... and what context? Nobody was (legally) accusing Google of monopoly until recently, and this training has been in place forever. This is standard practice at most any big co, as far as I'm aware
- lmm 3y agoIt's illegal to do the things that those words describe. The actions are the problem, not the words. If you stop doing the thing, you naturally won't send emails saying you're doing the thing.
- Jiro 3y ago>If you stop doing the thing, you naturally won't send emails saying you're doing the thing. This is equivalent to "if you're not doing anything bad, you have nothing to hide". People speak imprecisely all the time. People also say things all the time that are correct and only describe legal behavior, but sound bad if taken out of context by a prosecutor out to get the company.
- lmm 3y ago> This is equivalent to "if you're not doing anything bad, you have nothing to hide". How is it? That's an argument about privacy, not about whether something looks illegal. > People speak imprecisely all the time. People also say things all the time that are correct and only describe legal behavior, but sound bad if taken out of context by a prosecutor out to get the company. Courts are aware of this and exercise judgement.
- yongjik 3y agoYour suggestion will result in a toxic workspace where anyone who does not like a product decision will simply say "Why do you want to hurt our users?", or even worse, "Why do you want to violate the law?" Companies ask employees to refrain from discussing such stuff because most employees are not in a position to evaluate "Does this decision run afoul of antitrust laws?" (And maybe because they actually want to hide something, but in that case, we had better see actual evidences of the supposedly wrong behavior, instead of "Company X asked employees to avoid words that may cause expensive lawsuits.")
- thomastjeffery 3y agoIt's toxic for employees to say, "This is a bad thing we should explicitly avoid doing", and it's A-OK for employees to say, "Don't let anyone hear you say we are doing these bad things. If you must talk about these things, use different words, or you will draw critical attention to our behavior."? Bullshit.
- yongjik 3y agoGoogle: Don't use words that make it sound like we're doing illegal things, when taken out of context. If you have a genuine concern, talk to our legal department. Your interpretation: "Don't let anyone hear you say we are doing these bad things." I'd say I don't buy that. (Edit: sorry I worded by initial comment with too much snark. Speaking of toxic environment...)
- thomastjeffery 3y agoYour entire argument assumes these words are being taken out of context. So you really believe that? I sincerely don't.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y agoI really believe that. From everything I've seen, Google consistently does the right thing with regards to avoiding search lock-in, and is substantially above the industry standard in doing so. Just try changing the default search engine in Chrome vs. Edge!