71–80 of 128 posts
The disappearing chat messages were a pain in the ass for employees too.
there's a group to join to enable history by default.
It's a fantastic feature; meaning I am never distracted on a European Monday morning by what someone sent me on an American Friday afternoon. ;)
It's worth it b/c corporations only get penalized with measly fines
I’ve often thought that when a company, especially one as big as Alphabet/Google, gets fined, it’s simply seen as an operating cost and not as a motivator to do better.
CBA in Australia was fined $700 million and Westpac $1.3 billion for mere tens of thousands of transactions that were in breach. They have spent a lot of time and money fixing their shit since then, unsurprisingly.
Fines that punch through to individuals are another great motivator. Health and safety rules suddenly started getting taken a great deal more seriously in my neck of the woods when managers became personally liable for up to $200,000 for breaches.
> The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation. > Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation. All true. I'm just gla…
I'm sure the AI this company will produce will "do no evil"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve often thought that when a company, especially one as big as Alphabet/Google, gets fined, it’s simply seen as an operating cost and not as a motivator to do better.
Random thought people say you can't put a corporation in jail. Well they're wrong. You could sentence the board to serve a stint in jail. Or management. Or even everyone that works there. Want to talk about lighting a fire under people.
> The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation. > Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation. All true. I'm just gla…
Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We haven't yet figured out how to shutdown cancer once they get past a certain scale. Large tech firms are like cancer is what the last two decades have taught us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Governments should be in the habit of shutting down any and all enterprises at a drop of a hat. Any infraction should result in immediate termination + mass arrests as you correctly point out. Countries that have taken this approach (i.e. Cuba, Zimbabwe) have shown great success and flourishing, thriving economies.
We say, as a bill winds through Congress to force the sale of TikTok.
To me, the intersection of issues does create a special case.
There is China's suppression of free speech within China overall, including its suppression of TikTok. Its sister app Douyin is heavily censored. This includes its lack of business/market reciprocity by banning Facebook, etc.
Then there has been China's censoring of posts on TikTok (at least in the past, claimed to be no longer the case).
Chinese governments institutionalized oversight and access options into any level of its countries businesses, ... China's general international propaganda efforts take on a different level of meaning when they include control of hugely popular consumers social networks.
I don't think there is any simple or obvious principle based solution to TikTok.
And of course, related to this whole discussion, China isn't going to disclose, or let any company in its influence disclose, any of its troublesome behavior.
Making even conspiracy level doubts about TikTok's actual motives and behavior reasonable to entertain in a legal sense, since we know China/TikTok will be intransigent about any kind real open analysis of that they are actually doing or not at the China's governments behest.
China does not provide its own judicial review process to check its own behavior, supply any constitutional or legal commitments to hold itself in check, provide any cooperation with outside oversight, or have any reciprocal agreements with the US to cooperate in limiting information warfare.
> The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation. > Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation. All true. I'm just gla…
Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.
> The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation. > Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation. All true. I'm just gla…
Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.