At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints • Hacker News Board

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#91

Post by nerdponx » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #80

d3ad1ysp0rk wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cool" for me isn't somewhere that I can say anything I want without concern for how it affects others. Cool is inclusive.

But that's a strawman, since I didn't say that. You talk of vague "inclusivity", and hyperbolic "say anything I want"; but the post specifically referred to "Calling someone a 'princess' for liking salads" - when are we going to be inclusive of differing opinions and forms of expression? Seems a very specific interpretational framework is being mandated here. Using rough language versus running off to HR when offende…

There are so many other/better ways to question someone's taste, even in jest.

This is also why I originally said it depends on the context. You can say it to a work buddy who you hang out with after hours. You can't say it to someone from another team who you don't know very well. Use your head.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#92

Post by icc97 » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

trevyn wrote: post #81

tehlike wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?" on what evidence/grounds?

None needed, California is an "at-will" employment state -- you can be fired for any legal reason or none at all.

From what I understand from my sister who's a lawyer at a tech firm in LA, firing people in California is harder than firing people in the UK.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#93

Post by humanrebar » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #78

I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized". TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect. The point of the list,…

> I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.

While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise.

There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#94

Post by whitemale » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:40 PM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #78

I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized". TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect. The point of the list,…

> privileged white men like myself

The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.

The current Chancellor of Germany happens to be a women, which is the most privileged positions in Europe.

I'm also sure that you will find a lot of white men who lack anything that can be considered privilege.

> why people might submit anonymously to such a list > This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't.

Even if a rape accusation turns out to be false, the damage is done, and nobody will care about your "privileged white men" because they don't have enough victim creds.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#95

Post by icc97 » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:41 PM UTC

dagenleg wrote: post #56

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #7

I feel this might be problematic. The Soviet block countries had something called a culture of criticism and self-criticism. As part of this culture, factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?

I like how submissions are anonymous. Back in USSR an anonymous tip was a good way of getting rid of your annoying neighbours or rivals. Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?

As has been mentioned elsewhere - names aren't mentioned in the list.

Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#96

Post by zghst » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:43 PM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #78

I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized". TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect. The point of the list,…

It doesn't matter that the complaints are anonymous. The ultimate end result of this produces anxiety, even if action is taken. It is passive violence on a mass scale instead of healing occurring in one place. People should not want every fracture or trespass humming in the background to remind us. We should be moving on, dedicating our focus on being better people, achieving new heights, real things that progress us forward, that deserves recognition, not pain, not being known as a victim of something. I feel that is the way of our society now, a mad obsession with pain and offense. Violence shifted into an abstract form...

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#97

Post by tyingq » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:44 PM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #78

I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized". TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect. The point of the list,…

It's concerning to me, but not for the reasons you listed. Naming names isn't the only way to out someone on such a list. Details about time, place, personalities, specific words said, etc, can unintentionally out someone.

And it's not just the accused that could be outed. The accuser faces the same issue.

I don't see why it's odd to have some concerns about this approach. It clearly requires a moderator with some skill, or a mistake could really hurt someone.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#98

Post by chipgap98 » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:45 PM UTC

whitemale wrote: post #94

jlebar wrote: post #78

I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized". TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect. The point of the list,…

> privileged white men like myself The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World. The current Chancellor of Germany happens to be a women, which is the most privileged positions in Europe. I'm also sure that you will find a lot of white men who lack anything that can be considered privilege. > why people might submit anonymously to such a lis…

> The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.

That's not what privilege is. Its about how society treats people as a whole. As as a whole, white men benefit from their gender and race. Yes there are white people who are poor or have other issues. Yes there are black people people who are wealthy or in positions of power. Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#99

Post by chipgap98 » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:48 PM UTC

odiroot wrote: post #6

tyingq wrote: post #2

I'm not a big fan of HR departments, but an open company-wide-readable email list seems like it could have it's own perils. Hopefully it's carefully moderated/anonymized/edited by somebody who is good at that sort of thing.

This has really huge potential for abuse. How do we know the acts happened indeed?

While there are instances of false accusations, isn't the larger problem in our society that people are harassed or abused at work on a seemingly regular basis?

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#100

Post by jlebar » Tue, May 23, 2017, 3:48 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #93

jlebar wrote: post #78

I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized". TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect. The point of the list,…

> I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one. While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse w…

> let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is nothing wrong with valuing evidence-based judgements and due process. But that is not what I was ranting against. Conflating the trope of immediately jumping to a concern about false accusations while ignoring victims with "valuing evidence-based judgements and due process" is, however, a pretty good example of what I am bothered by.

I think the real thought experiment is: Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?

I think the answer might be, most of us here have never had to worry about being harassed at work. Most of us here don't know what it's like to be worried for our safety -- psychological or sexual -- at work. Most of us don't know what it's like to be subjected to a constant stream of microagressions from coworkers. So most of us can't imagine what many minorities in tech go through on a daily basis. That's just because most of us fit in.

What all of us can imagine is being falsely accused of doing something bad. And so since that's what we can imagine without effort, that's what we talk about, and worry about. Availability bias.

Falling prey to the availability bias doesn't make you a bad person. But you can learn to be better.