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.
If management wanted to find out who posted what on yag, it would have no problem doing so.
think carefully before you answer. officially designated authority is not necessary for a thing to be impactful.
I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of women and minorities in tech, who are disproportionately the victims of harassment.
I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of those who might be anonymously accused of harassment without evidence or opportunity to defend themselves.
-----
Does it sound better turned around? If not, why not? What are you attempting to communicate, and how might you state it more clearly?
To my knowledge, as I have said a dozen times in this thread, that is not happening. Nobody here can point to a single instance of that happening as a result of this email list. All anyone has offered is an entirely hypothetical slippery-slope potential.
We know that people are being harassed in our workplaces all the time. That's a real problem, which is why I am concerned about it.
You keep equating these two issues -- harassment and false accusations -- like they're both big problems that we need to worry about equally. I have zero evidence that this is true, and tons of evidence that it's not.
But no matter. Thank you for clarifying your perspective. I understand, appreciate, and empathize with it. After all, here before us is a clear, real, known problem that hurts the vulnerable and weak among us. Why would we worry about what else could go wrong, when we know for certain that women and minorities are being hurt?
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.