3 ms·
A lot of accusations in this article, which presents a very one-sided take on the issue. The author knew what they wanted to say and found information and anec
by chambo622 11y ago
A lot of accusations in this article, which presents a very one-sided take on the issue. The author knew what they wanted to say and found information and anecdotes to support it.
Not saying that's wrong, but I think Google should have been engaged more deeply for this piece and had their side of the story represented (I'd be interested to hear what they have to say about some of these allegations). Talking to security guards (likely contractors) and expecting them to say or do anything other than their job is unreasonable. And basically accosting Google reps with all of this "evidence" and expecting them to sit down to a conversation that already had a guaranteed outcome is equally so. As it is, I'm not convinced Google is doing anything illegal here.
- rdsnsca 11y agoIf the court ruling he quoted in the article is right, they are.
- greenyoda 11y ago"I think Google should have been engaged more deeply for this piece and had their side of the story represented" Google was asked to comment, but refused. The article states: "A Google spokesperson declined my offer to sit down and watch the footage, and refused to comment on the record regarding allegations that company security guards had been intimidating the homeless."
- cbd1984 11y agoBecause anything they could have said would have been twisted to fit the author's narrative. The only thing worse than having "no comment" is having your actual comments used to hang you.
- rmah 11y agoNot simply accusations, but also evidence. First hand accounts from victims. As for the security guards, it's not part of their job to break the law. Harassing people on public sidewalks is illegal.