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

So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on.

I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.

I'm no expert, and not trying to sway opinion either way. But the results of your Google search only make it muddier.

This system does not facilitate accusations of any kind, because it is anonymous to all parties involved.

I've repeated this a number of times, but people are not hearing it. This is exactly my point, that people here are fixating on the non-problem of false accusations instead of the real problem of microaggressions, macroaggressions, and harassment proper in the workplace.

> a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.

Not everything bad that people do to one another rises to the level of criminal misconduct. And not every victim of a crime wishes to confront their perpetrator in the court of law. Part of the point of this list is to raise awareness of stuff which does not go through the courts, but which is nonetheless bad.

> however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.

Nobody is accusing anybody of anything.

People are relating stories. "This happened to me." That is not an accusation. The only victims here are the people relating the stories.

If the "paranoia" effected is that more white dudes start considering how the things they say and might affect people who are not white dudes and think twice before doing or saying things that might hurt another person, then I think that's working as intended.

> what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct?

That is one purpose to the list, yes.

> why do you suppose it will accomplish that?

By raising awareness, as TFA and I have said multiple times now.

> my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.

Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.

Those accidentally committing transgressions -- either called out or not in the newsletter -- may now be made aware that they are doing something bad. Through this mailing list, I personally have learned of whole classes of things that are hurtful to people, that I just didn't realize before. That makes me a better, more considerate person.

> additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.

Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something.

Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

But, one more time: Nobody is being accused of anything via this list.

Notice how many times above you assume that's not the case and that people are being falsely and publicly named and shamed, despite this having been made clear multiple times in thread? Notice how few times you have considered why people might be posting to this list? This is exactly what I am talking about.

This thread was a great opportunity to talk about harassment in the workplace. Instead it's turned into a bunch of people complaining about something that is not happening, but is bad because it might hypothetically hurt privileged white men.

Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.

I find considerable irony in this assertion considering we're talking about Google here. If any organization should know about the emptiness of promises of anonymity it's Google.

> Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.

they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise. the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.

> Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something. Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.

this seems like deliberate misinterpretation of my point. I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well. I'm not making a legalistic argument I'm making an ethical argument. I believe those principles establish solid ethics for handling disputes, and are just as well suited for interactions between individuals they are for interactions between the state and an individual.

> Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.

Not the point. The point is that the slippery slope to truly bad outcomes begins with well intentioned systems like this one.