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

Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 311 posts

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#81

Post by defen »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #55
rdtsc wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow. > David would go for months or even years at a time completely ignoring my pleas to see his son — not even so much as a text to us, despite living about a mile away. I can see not having the desire to be with her and break up the relationship, but abandoning his child and not seeing them for years at a time is downright evil. It's so strange to hear how Google touts itself to be at the forefront of inclusivit…

What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option. But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with the child.

> What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with?

The child doesn't get a choice about being brought into the world, so your desire or intent to produce a child is irrelevant. If you don't want to father a child, don't do anything that could reasonably lead to producing a child. If you father one anyway, that's on you. To deliberately alienate yourself from your child in that way, especially when you have the wealth and resources he does, is evil in my opinion.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#82

Post by lanstin »

ProAm wrote: post #44
unapologetic wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He forced the consequences onto her. None of these men will ever actually face consequences. They are all obscenely wealthy and well connected.

What did he force onto her?

From the article, he lied and as a consequence of the lie extended a sexual relationship with a person. Then when his actions (among other things) had created a new human, he behaved in a way most people recognize as badly. This narrative clearly depicts a despicable person. If you are happy with a lot of powerful institutions being controlled by and for despicable people, then by all means, there's no issue. However, it's a common trend for despicable people to run institutions into the ground rather than create a happy institution that ends up realizing the "transform humanity for the better" vision that so many profess.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#83

Post by Aqua »

loganfrederick wrote: post #79

I really liked Ben Horowitz's new book "What You Do Is Who You Are". However, the only passage that I disliked and stood out to me is when he defended David Drummond for his ability to thrive at Google for a long time despite the corporate culture changing. This was after Drummond was called out publicly for abandoning his kid he had with a subordinate: https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/25/report-alphabet-c...…

That's not how business works.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#84

Post by hackinthebochs »

jacquesm wrote: post #76
hackinthebochs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this "abuse of power" angle at all. Having a relationship with a subordinate is not an abuse of power. Insisting that your job rests on a relationship is an abuse of power, but without evidence that happened (and it seems like it didnt), there's no abuse. This idea that a power differential invalidates a relationship is nonsense. The fact is, people spend half or more of their waking hours at work. You sp…

The abuse of power is that he maneuvered her into a position of dependency, then bailed out and used the fact that she was now dependent on him against her.

Maneuvered implies intent. How do you know that was his intention from the start?

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#85

Post by throwaway490194 »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #58
throwaway490194 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are terrible people too. But "the way they have treated women"? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS? The women who participated in these extra-marital affairs are every bit as evil!

Nah, women are victims with no agency, men are predators. Get with the times!

LOL. They're BOTH narcissists and narcissism is genetic so the baby she popped out will be a narcissist as well.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#86

Post by hackinthebochs »

vanusa wrote: post #74
hackinthebochs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option. But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with the child.

Okay - "evil" may have been a touch too strong. I'll go with "scummy and reprehensible". And: "deeply at odds with the ethical standards that Google once claimed to stand for (not that we ever took them seriously when they said those things)."

I can endorse scummy and reprehensible.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#87

Post by lanstin »

d1zzy wrote: post #72
unapologetic wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well she's stuck raising the son of an emotionally abusive sociopath. Besides that he pressured her into quitting with promises of financial support, then left her with the baby and refused to pay. I can't even comprehend the type of person who doesn't see the cruelty of this man. She trusted the wrong person, that doesn't justify his behavior.

> Well she's stuck raising the son of an emotionally abusive sociopath. She decided to have a child and she decided to raise them. These are choices she made. He decided he doesn't want to take part in raising his son. It sounds like you want her to get all the pros and him all the cons in this situation. But their decisions have both pros and cons for both of them. Her decision means she gets to have a family/child…

There are people who aren't cruel liars and who manage to make their companies truly great and beloved. "Don't do what is illegal" is not "don't be evil" and being evil will make it harder to organize the worlds information, and harder to get a long sustained effort from others to help with that task.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#88

Post by GeekyBear »

pinewurst wrote: post #31
thrwn_frthr_awy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've heard it already. They literally had a "masseuse room" where Sergey would have sex with employees inside the Google building.

Quote from link above: "HR told me that Sergey's response to it was, 'Why not? They're my employees,'" Ayers said. "But you don't have employees for f---ing! That's not what the job is."

The next line is really illustrative of whose interests an HR department serves.

>"'Oh my God, this is a sexual harassment claim waiting to happen!' That was my concern," she recalled

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#89

Post by senordevnyc »

vanusa wrote: post #74
hackinthebochs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option. But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with the child.

Okay - "evil" may have been a touch too strong. I'll go with "scummy and reprehensible". And: "deeply at odds with the ethical standards that Google once claimed to stand for (not that we ever took them seriously when they said those things)."

Do we really want companies firing employees for personal morality issues that have zero bearing on their ability to do their job?

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#90

Post by m0zg »

nostrademons wrote: post #69
m0zg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be wrong, but I don't think there's any law that forbids having consensual sex with employees. It's unethical if they're his direct reports, sure, but I don't think it's illegal. I'm sure if I had _fifty billion dollars_, I'd have to fight off women like zombies in a movie even though I'm already married.

There's no criminal law against it, but it opens you up to civil suits from aggrieved parties (who can be either participants in the affair or bystanders who feel they were given a raw deal because of the relationship). Hiring, firing, and performance management is supposed to be based on your performance at doing your job, not because your boss dumped you and now dislikes you. Sexual harassment and discrimination su…

You're assuming there are "aggrieved parties". To the best of my knowledge nobody was "aggrieved" by Sergey at least. He probably had them sign something before the "massage" or else I'm sure we'd see some lawsuits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying sexual harassment in any way. But it's not "harassment" if it's wanted and consensual, and it's not _automatically_ unethical if the employee is not in his chain of command or even if they are, if they aren't forced into it, and there's no punishment for declining. If they make advances on their own and are merely not turned down (see e.g. Rosenberg, who IIRC wasn't in his chain of command), that's stretching the definition.

Post reply on HN