Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 234 posts

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

#191

Post by auserperson »

Chris2048 wrote: post #165
auserperson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reeks of privilege. A lot of people leaves until they find a place where they can get a paycheck, do their job, and not be discriminated. If you can choose jobs for their "coolness" factor, you don't seem to have this problem. So you should at least understand that inclusive and professional behavior, even though is "uncool" for you, it's vital for a lot of people.

The 'p' word always seems to come out, as a kind of insult or accusation, I assume since you used it with "reek" (implication of negativity) this is the case here? Yes, in fact anyone living in the west is privileged. Since we are talking in the context of software engineers, we're probably better off than most. Who are you talking about? > get a paycheck, do their job, and not be discriminated What "discrimination"?…

1- I don't feel like i need to explain the concept of minority to you. 2- no one got fired for calling someone a princess, so that's just deviating the subject to a fake conversation. I wouldn't had approved this. But someone got anonymously given out that made someone else uncomfortable, which is fine. 3- Some people can collect their paychecks without having to be offended, so it just seems just. 4- tattoos can be unprofessional. if they have a fucking swatiska or a pepe the frog on them, and I don't fucking care if people with those get fired.

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

#192

Post by Chris2048 »

auserperson wrote: post #191
Chris2048 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'p' word always seems to come out, as a kind of insult or accusation, I assume since you used it with "reek" (implication of negativity) this is the case here? Yes, in fact anyone living in the west is privileged. Since we are talking in the context of software engineers, we're probably better off than most. Who are you talking about? > get a paycheck, do their job, and not be discriminated What "discrimination"?…

1- I don't feel like i need to explain the concept of minority to you. 2- no one got fired for calling someone a princess, so that's just deviating the subject to a fake conversation. I wouldn't had approved this. But someone got anonymously given out that made someone else uncomfortable, which is fine. 3- Some people can collect their paychecks without having to be offended, so it just seems just. 4- tattoos can be…

> I don't feel like i need to explain the concept of minority to you.

great. I'm not sure I asked your opinion on the matter.

> no one got fired for calling someone a princess

I said "shamed/fired", and we're talking about HR, who are generally there to protect the company from disrepute, including firing people. The US is well know for liberal and at-will termination.

> Some people can collect their paychecks without having to be offended

That isn't the point - I'm calling into question your narrative: 'If you can choose jobs for their "coolness" factor', you are suggesting there are people who cannot choose their jobs for 'coolness', because there are more important things they are choosing for that reduce the number of jobs available to them; I am suggesting "being called a princess" is as superficial as "coolness".

> if they have a fucking swatiska

This is a tangent isn't it? The point is, those words aren't always consistent as attitudes on what is 'professional' change, and have changed, over time.

What constitutes 'unprofessional' is a matter of opinion, you are flipping this around to suggest that if something (might be) considered unprofessional,. I should not so it - but if everyone did this nothing would change. TLDR; calling something professional etc is an appeal to (supposed) popular opinion, not an argument.

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

#193

Post by Morgawr »

jlebar wrote: post #157
metaphorm wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so I'm sure now that you're not understanding my point, which is that implementing a system that facilitates false accusations does significant harm and does not remedy the real actual problem of under-reporting to legal authorities . 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. however, anonymously accusing people of misconduc…

> implementing a system that facilitates false accusations does significant harm and does not remedy the real actual problem of under-reporting to legal authorities. 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 f…

>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.

I agree with you but please don't single out us "white dudes", we can be victims of harassment and discrimination as well and we benefit from the yes@google list as well as anybody else.

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

#194

Post by joshuamorton »

metaphorm wrote: post #159
jlebar wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> implementing a system that facilitates false accusations does significant harm and does not remedy the real actual problem of under-reporting to legal authorities. 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 f…

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

>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.

So, you're assumption is that the 15,000 engineers who are subscribed (including multiple people in this thread), are incapable of determining whether or not the list is actually anonymous? Its a google internal list, how do you think people submit things? Your argument seems to boil down to "these 15000 people don't actually know what's good for them", and I find that (as a subscriber) incredibly infantilizing.

>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.

That's not what an accusation is. "Someone did something that made me feel uncomfortable" does not accuse anyone of anything.

>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.

You don't think the list curators thought of that? C'mon.

>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.

Which are irrelevant. Half of those things don't apply in civil cases, much less a company's HR process, much less something that isn't a disciplinary tool. But if we're going to use the constitution as a point of argument, it also prohibits restrictions on speech so if Google as a company intends to uphold the constitution, it shouldn't restrict its employees right to speak to each other about anything, including complaints about perceived sleights.

Once again: comparing this list to any kind of disciplinary tool or group is misleading and conveys a misunderstanding of the list and Google.

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

#195

Post by amablue »

anothercomment wrote: post #190
shoyer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no naming and shaming in "Yes, at Google". From the article: "Usually, the people in the complaints are not named."

Not sure that helps much. At worst, people will start guessing and perhaps suspect the wrong people. And many people can probably identified from the context. Furthermore, there can be no defense against the accusations.

Empirically, this does not happen. It's a company of like 70,000 employees. You're not going to be able to guess the people involved when the company is that size. Maybe if it was a company on the order of 100s of people you'd be able to.

This is a hypothetical worry that doesn't seem to play out in practice.

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

#196

Post by metaphorm »

whitemale wrote: post #187
metaphorm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a difference. racist trolling is a form of racism.

Is making fun of a group of people and having no hatred towards them the same thing as actually hating that group? If I tell a joke about black/asian/latino/ then I'm automatically racist, then I'm exactly the same thing as the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church?

trolling and joking aren't the same thing. a joke is intended as humor and the audience understands it as such (even if they might not consider it funny). trolling is intended to cause offense and distress. even if a racist troll does not authentically hold racist beliefs, they are displaying a level of insensitivity in communication that is identical with racist speech.

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

#197

Post by metaphorm »

joshuamorton wrote: post #194
metaphorm wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>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. So, you're assumption is that the 15,000 engineers who are subscribed (including multiple people in this thread), are incapable of determining whether or not the list is actually anonymous? Its a google internal list, how do you think peopl…

if the list has no function with respect to regulating behavior (which is what a disciplinary tool is), then what is it's function?

think carefully before you answer. officially designated authority is not necessary for a thing to be impactful.

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

#198

Post by joshuamorton »

metaphorm wrote: post #197
joshuamorton wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. So, you're assumption is that the 15,000 engineers who are subscribed (including multiple people in this thread), are incapable of determining whether or not the list is actually anonymous? Its a google internal list, how do you think peopl…

if the list has no function with respect to regulating behavior (which is what a disciplinary tool is), then what is it's function? think carefully before you answer. officially designated authority is not necessary for a thing to be impactful.

Its mission, as I understand it, is to inform people of ways in which coworkers feel hurt or uncomfortable, so that employees may better understand each other. Anything beyond that is driven at an individual level.

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

#199

Post by spaceflunky »

amablue wrote: post #195
anothercomment wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that helps much. At worst, people will start guessing and perhaps suspect the wrong people. And many people can probably identified from the context. Furthermore, there can be no defense against the accusations.

Empirically, this does not happen. It's a company of like 70,000 employees. You're not going to be able to guess the people involved when the company is that size. Maybe if it was a company on the order of 100s of people you'd be able to. This is a hypothetical worry that doesn't seem to play out in practice.

Disagree. It's super easy to narrow it down to a handful of people and make assumptions about who it was.

Especially since it sounds like the stories are personal, you can just figure what team the victim is on and narrow down the list of possible offenders to a few. Usually there are details: senior/junior, married/unmarried, old/young, manager, direct report, colleagues, etc, etc.

You can figure it out... Not in all cases, but most of the time I'm sure it's easy to figure out...

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

#200

Post by blorginator »

spaceflunky wrote: post #199
amablue wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Empirically, this does not happen. It's a company of like 70,000 employees. You're not going to be able to guess the people involved when the company is that size. Maybe if it was a company on the order of 100s of people you'd be able to. This is a hypothetical worry that doesn't seem to play out in practice.

Disagree. It's super easy to narrow it down to a handful of people and make assumptions about who it was. Especially since it sounds like the stories are personal, you can just figure what team the victim is on and narrow down the list of possible offenders to a few. Usually there are details: senior/junior, married/unmarried, old/young, manager, direct report, colleagues, etc, etc. You can figure it out... Not in al…

> Disagree. It's super easy to narrow it down to a handful of people and make assumptions about who it was.

I have to ask, are you saying this because have you read the stories and been able to narrow down who it was? Or are you just assuming? The stories are extremely vague, and they're curated by someone who removes unnecessary detail from the stories to make sure they stay anonymized.

Here's the type of story you might see in the mailing list (this is a fictitious example along the lines of what actually shows up) "I had a meeting with a male team mate and a male employee from another group. The employee from the other group would only address my male colleague despite me being the lead of the project."

That's what most of the stories are like, with few identifying details, and just a few sentences at most describing the situation. The stories are intentionally obfuscated and brief. If this was a real incident, I'd have no idea if someone from my team was involved, or if it was my manager, or any other person I worked with. The people involved will be able to figure it out if they're reading, but in the overwhelming majority of cases there'd be no way of knowing.

The only time I've every seen someone figure out who was being mentioned was when they outed themself.

Post reply on HN