5 ms·

Dear Googler123. Telling someone STFU is not nice, in any universe, not even HN. Also, it is quite inappropriate, and may be illegal as well as unethical, to di

Dear Googler123. Telling someone STFU is not nice, in any universe, not even HN. Also, it is quite inappropriate, and may be illegal as well as unethical, to discuss a person's performance while at a company. The real culprit is Google, no matter what. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5296146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5296146 for my take on management's responsibility for what happens in a company. Does Michael have a beef? Yes he does. Does Michael have a right to express himself, give his opinion publicly? Yes he does. If Google is the subject of his smears, Google only has Google to blame.

mayanksinghal 14y ago
He is not saying Michael to STFU, he is telling him that if he had accused his manager of lying in the face, he would have been shown what the scores were just so that he would 'STFU'.
- chris_mahan 14y ago
  He's not? It sounded a lot like he was telling him exactly that.
  - wutbrodo 14y ago
    > And if it's not and you believe your manager is lying to you about your specific score, I'm sure he'd be happy to get you to STFU (hard, I know) by showing it to you directly. It seems entirely unambiguous that he's saying "You can get your manager to show you your scores by making enough of a fuss that your manager will do it just to make you STFU".
    - chris_mahan 14y ago
      Read the whole post as a unit, and realize he's telling him to STFU. He's also hiding behind this man's manager. He assumes the manager would also tell him to STFU, when in fact the manager would probably not have done that. In fact, the manager didn't do that. The manager may have wanted to do that, although that is purely conjectures, but the manager didn't, perhaps because it's against company policy, but also perhaps because his manager didn't want to go all out on Michael, perhaps realizing that the faults in the matter might not have all been on Michael's side. So, then, I think Googler123 is telling Michael to STFU not by telling him directly, but by putting words in his manager's mouth, which is I think even worse, because not only is this denigrating to Michael, but also to his former manager, who may still be a Google employee. Makes sense?
- pseut 14y ago
  Yes, that's literally correct. But I read it as him also implicitly telling Michael to STFU. Interpretations can differ, but that's part of the point: one can be unambiguous by not writing 'STFU' anywhere in the message and since not being unambiguous is a choice....
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
VikingCoder 14y ago
Telling Google to "Choke on a fucking taint, Google. Choke. On. A. Taint." [1] is also not nice, in any universe, not even HN. Not that two wrongs make a right, but I don't agree with your read on the "STFU" line. I think Googler123 meant it conversationally and casually, not like a not-nice direct challenge to Michael like you read it. Your argument about management is flawed: a company is made up of people, who ALL have to act the way they want employees to act, and expect the same out of each other. Michael absolutely has a right to express himself, and since he was a Google employee, he had the duty at that time to try to make it the best place in the world to work. That he didn't even confront his manager about his real number doesn't speak well to his willingness to try to improve the place. Especially since he had a safety net job offer. What was his risk? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058
- stock_toaster 14y ago
  > Telling Google to "Choke on a fucking taint, Google. Choke. On. A. Taint." [1] is also not nice, in any universe, not even HN. Maybe this is just me, but I think hyperbolically telling a for profit corporation to stuff it (e.g. screw AT&T), is far more socially (normatively) acceptable than making a personal attack against an individual. Neither are _nice_, clearly.
  - VikingCoder 14y ago
    It's not just a for profit corporation, it's his former employer.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      So? Why does that detail matter? In my first digs at Google I specifically avoided exposing any relationship (it was exposed by an HN commenter, to deflect). All I said was that there was mismanagement at a level approaching the criminal (which is true) and I gave a couple details (accidentally leaking calibration scores-- I thought that had been common knowledge-- and the death of 20% time). Neither of these are confidential. How a company treats its employees is (with lots of legal precedent) covered under whistleblower protections-- not a trade secret. Therefore, the existence of any employment relationship is irrelevant. If I leaked a product, I'd be unethical and deserve to be sued. Exposing the existence of calibration scores is fair game.

mayanksinghal 14y ago

He is not saying Michael to STFU, he is telling him that if he had accused his manager of lying in the face, he would have been shown what the scores were just so that he would 'STFU'.

chris_mahan 14y ago
He's not? It sounded a lot like he was telling him exactly that.
- wutbrodo 14y ago
  > And if it's not and you believe your manager is lying to you about your specific score, I'm sure he'd be happy to get you to STFU (hard, I know) by showing it to you directly. It seems entirely unambiguous that he's saying "You can get your manager to show you your scores by making enough of a fuss that your manager will do it just to make you STFU".
  - chris_mahan 14y ago
    Read the whole post as a unit, and realize he's telling him to STFU. He's also hiding behind this man's manager. He assumes the manager would also tell him to STFU, when in fact the manager would probably not have done that. In fact, the manager didn't do that. The manager may have wanted to do that, although that is purely conjectures, but the manager didn't, perhaps because it's against company policy, but also perhaps because his manager didn't want to go all out on Michael, perhaps realizing that the faults in the matter might not have all been on Michael's side. So, then, I think Googler123 is telling Michael to STFU not by telling him directly, but by putting words in his manager's mouth, which is I think even worse, because not only is this denigrating to Michael, but also to his former manager, who may still be a Google employee. Makes sense?
pseut 14y ago
Yes, that's literally correct. But I read it as him also implicitly telling Michael to STFU. Interpretations can differ, but that's part of the point: one can be unambiguous by not writing 'STFU' anywhere in the message and since not being unambiguous is a choice....

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

VikingCoder 14y ago

Telling Google to "Choke on a fucking taint, Google. Choke. On. A. Taint." [1] is also not nice, in any universe, not even HN. Not that two wrongs make a right, but I don't agree with your read on the "STFU" line. I think Googler123 meant it conversationally and casually, not like a not-nice direct challenge to Michael like you read it. Your argument about management is flawed: a company is made up of people, who ALL have to act the way they want employees to act, and expect the same out of each other. Michael absolutely has a right to express himself, and since he was a Google employee, he had the duty at that time to try to make it the best place in the world to work. That he didn't even confront his manager about his real number doesn't speak well to his willingness to try to improve the place. Especially since he had a safety net job offer. What was his risk? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058

stock_toaster 14y ago
> Telling Google to "Choke on a fucking taint, Google. Choke. On. A. Taint." [1] is also not nice, in any universe, not even HN. Maybe this is just me, but I think hyperbolically telling a for profit corporation to stuff it (e.g. screw AT&T), is far more socially (normatively) acceptable than making a personal attack against an individual. Neither are _nice_, clearly.
- VikingCoder 14y ago
  It's not just a for profit corporation, it's his former employer.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    So? Why does that detail matter? In my first digs at Google I specifically avoided exposing any relationship (it was exposed by an HN commenter, to deflect). All I said was that there was mismanagement at a level approaching the criminal (which is true) and I gave a couple details (accidentally leaking calibration scores-- I thought that had been common knowledge-- and the death of 20% time). Neither of these are confidential. How a company treats its employees is (with lots of legal precedent) covered under whistleblower protections-- not a trade secret. Therefore, the existence of any employment relationship is irrelevant. If I leaked a product, I'd be unethical and deserve to be sued. Exposing the existence of calibration scores is fair game.