←back to thread

How Google spent 15 years creating a culture of concealment

(www.nytimes.com)
156 points tysone | 6 comments | 20 Nov 24 11:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.824s | source | bottom
Show context
getpost ◴[20 Nov 24 23:05 UTC] No.42199072[source]▶
If anything you ever say during routine business operations can end up as evidence, clear and honest communication will suffer. The effectiveness of organizations, including the ability to act ethically, will be seriously degraded.

There needs to be some kind of work product doctrine, which protects the privacy of routine business communication. Defining that, while allowing the collection of evidence of criminal activity, won't be easy, but the current state of affairs is unworkable.

I don't wish to facilitate corporate crime, and it's obvious that some of Google's anti-competitive behavior is unlawful. But, I don't see any realistic alternative to what Google is doing in the current legal environment.

replies(12): >>42199118 #>>42199195 #>>42199223 #>>42199254 #>>42199476 #>>42199565 #>>42199605 #>>42199877 #>>42199883 #>>42200785 #>>42201087 #>>42201671 #
lancesells ◴[20 Nov 24 23:23 UTC] No.42199195[source]▶
> If anything you ever say during routine business operations can end up as evidence, clear and honest communication will suffer. The effectiveness of organizations, including the ability to act ethically, will be seriously degraded.

> There needs to be some kind of work product doctrine, which protects the privacy of routine business communication.

Wow. This is the opposite of how I feel. Mega-corporations should have their communications logged at a much higher level than a normal business. The things that have come out in court show how they manipulated their customers (advertisers). Regardless of how you feel about advertising a portion of those companies are small mom and pop shops trying to get by. If you have communications that can be used as evidence you're probably in the wrong.

replies(9): >>42199221 #>>42199265 #>>42199338 #>>42199371 #>>42199492 #>>42199507 #>>42199626 #>>42199700 #>>42200398 #
1. Aerroon ◴[21 Nov 24 00:01 UTC] No.42199507[source]▶
Corporations aren't real things. It's a group of people doing something. And people make mistakes.

One of the objectives of a corporation is to reduce liability. If open and honest communication means that they end up liable, then they just won't have open and honest communication. End result is dysfunctional and compartmentalized companies. And ultimately the cost for all of this will be borne by everyone.

One way to get open and honest communications from the corporation is if employees are personally liable. But then you wouldn't have open and honest communication from those employees.

replies(3): >>42199757 #>>42199839 #>>42200471 #
2. vacuity ◴[21 Nov 24 00:35 UTC] No.42199757[source]▶
I hugely agree on "corporations...[are] a group of people". I think it's an interesting model. But I would say that there's some essential liability that should be addressed or else the corporation has no reason to remain intact. Corporations that are trying to go below that standard will probably tend towards dysfunctional and/or corrupt behavior. Communication shapes organization, and if you tell me there isn't open and honest communication, I'm wondering what bad things they are doing or will do.
3. whateveracct ◴[21 Nov 24 00:43 UTC] No.42199839[source]▶
> One of the objectives of a corporation is to reduce liability.

Are the employees personally liable though?

replies(1): >>42200121 #
4. nickff ◴[21 Nov 24 01:32 UTC] No.42200121[source]▶
Depends on the specific circumstances, but the prosecutors are usually happy to focus on the company, because it has the money to pay out a big settlement (which is how these things usually end).
replies(1): >>42200199 #
5. whateveracct ◴[21 Nov 24 01:44 UTC] No.42200199{3}[source]▶
I am also fairly sure employees are generally not personally liable.

The issue here is while employees aren't personally liable if they discuss Google wrong doing, Google is liable, which causes the culture of secrecy and deletion.

So the comment I was replying to is kind of wrong about "liability" and the root cause here. Because yeah..Google isn't gonna not be liable for stuff they as an organization of people do. That can't be helped.

6. vlovich123 ◴[21 Nov 24 02:27 UTC] No.42200471[source]▶
> End result is dysfunctional and compartmentalized companies. And ultimately the cost for all of this will be borne by everyone.

Only once they get really big though. And maybe that's OK. While it increases the price of goods from that company, it lets smaller companies compete without the larger companies straight up ignoring the competition. Letting large players continue to dominate is worse for the cost experienced by everyone else.