Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress (buzzfeednews.com)
125 points by midza on Nov 20, 2018 | hide | past | favorite | 83 comments



If Google is somehow reluctant to allow current claims to relitigate their claims, does that mean that their plan going forward is to somehow restrict the top of the funnel for claims, so that the ones that do get litigated aren't as explosive or damaging as the current claims in progress?

It seems weird to me that they wouldn't retroactively apply the policy unless there's something to hide within whatever currently claims they have. You would think that the exposure would be similar, unless they strategically plan on doing something different with the future claims, like either restricting or dealing with them much faster so that they don't reach this stage, etc.


It's very rare for new rules to apply retroactively — why is this surprising?

Google isn't a legislator but its policies do affect many people. For example, in the context of laws, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

"In the United States, Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. [...] Thomas Jefferson described them as "equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases"."

(To be fair, the article cites exceptions)


>It's very rare for new rules to apply retroactively — why is this surprising?

Surely you would only be applying rules retroactively if you were engaged in reopening finished arbitration?

Cancelling a current process that is still in open session, on the basis that you have already publicly agreed that employees being forced into that process is unfair, is not being retrospective.


The most relevant information I see on this is Google's comment that future claims about past events will not be subject to binding arbitration. That implies that the special circumstance which will be different going forwards is not about underlying events, but about the actual current status of the claims.

If the announcement set Day 0 based on the date of the claimed harassment, that would be extremely suspicious, and I think the most natural reading would be some specific issue that's been resolved, but could produce exceptional damages. With a date-of-claim threshold, that seems much less likely; any kind of serial misbehavior or other mishandling that Google expects to avoid in the future could still create liability via claims not yet filed.

A few legally-inclined people elsewhere in the comments have pointed out that "adding the option to leave arbitration" behaves differently than "not forcing arbitration to begin with". Most non-forced arbitration is still binding, which means that neither party can start arbitration and then pursue a lawsuit after seeing the result. Opening a one-time option to leave ongoing arbitration would be much more similar to entering non-binding arbitration, a move lawyers frequently counsel against.

The proceedings of non-binding arbitration are almost never admissible in subsequent court cases, and the process lacks formal discovery. As a result, there are unpleasant tactics like entering non-binding arbitration, obtaining useful information (e.g. someone's schedule, or information of who knew about a behavior), and then pursuing a lawsuit with added or altered claims based on that information.


I suspect it boils down to one of the following?

1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely)

2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely)

3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely)

So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?


Doesn't matter, listening to their lawyers doesn't make it right. Lawyers exist to protect their clients from legal exposure, not to provide a moral compass.

If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone, then this is a no-brainer. They had zero problems giving a known-harasser millions to walk away quietly but now they're fighting to avoid responsibility for cases already in the system. Reeks of hypocrisy.


My assumption was that lawyers would have factored in the public relations aspect of the decision too, and are confident they can win both in the proceedings as well as in the court of public opinion.


That doesnt match the training, approach, nor skillset of the lawyers I know. They advise on legal matters, the client decides based on the sum total. Lawyers would explicitly avoid confusing legal opinions and business ones.

Then again, my lawyer friends aren't google lawyers.


The only actual business decisions I've seen corporate lawyers make are "no, that project is too legally risky to do". And even then the decision technically belongs to someone else, it's just that no one involved was both willing and able to contradict them. Anything beyond that pretty much reduces to "here are the legal options available, and their likely legal consequences."

Which is how things should stand - obviously morally, but even from a "ruthlessly maximize shareholder value" perspective. It's at least possible that reputational damage cashes out as a bigger financial risk (e.g. via lost staff, failed recruitment, or new regulations) than increased damages from lawsuits. Corporate counsel is almost certainly not the most qualified to calculate the size and likelihood of those risks. (And morally, of course, it would amount to Pichai et al abdicating responsibility for Google's decisions.)

I suspect counsel does have an outsize effect on these decisions, but not because they have final authority. Rather, the risks they present are generally large, immediate, and quantifiable. People tend to prioritize even unlikely risks of that sort against the slow, ambiguous decay of destroying a reputation or failing to follow a changing industry.


Seconded. Most general advice ("IANYL/TINLA") I've heard from lawyers in Germany about e.g. GDPR boiled down to "1. Don't. 2. If in doubt, see 1." -- it's their job to recommend against taking any risks even if the risks are sometimes necessary. It's your job as a business to assess whether that risk is still worth it.


I think this falls somewhere between "moral hazard" and "lawyers aren't assigned to do that".

If an open case saw a change of venue and then produced large damages, that's easily interpreted as a failure of the legal team to protect Google. If Google's retention rate or recruiting efficiency drop by some percentage, it might well cost more in lost expertise and recruiting work than a bad lawsuit would. But it wouldn't necessarily be discernible as a result of this decision, or even the sexual misconduct issue in general. I wouldn't expect the lawyers involved to be able to predict the size of that second impact and decide accordingly.

Certainly corporate lawyers sometimes enforce counterproductive decisions, but it's almost always down around the project level. For an issue Pichai is personally engaging with, it'd be pretty strange for a lawyer to go beyond saying "This is the safest legal option, but it may have other consequences. If you don't take it, here's the level of legal risk." Somebody else ought to be weighing the costs, and in an ideal world ethics, of making that decision.


this still doesn't make it not evil.


Outsourcing your moral agency to lawyers might be an explanation but it’s not an excuse.


what can Google do? Train their engineers to start taking the LSAT so by the time they get to trial, they will have the skill and experience to take on professional lawyers?


Lawyers only advise on the risks. In this case, they're advising on the risks management has created.

Removing an arbitration clause only opens you up to the risk of a lawsuit if you've done something to open yourself up to the risk of a lawsuit. Google has fostered a culture that has tolerated inappropriate behavior in the workplace. The legal "risk" is a symptom of poor management.


Yeah, this isn’t all that surprising. Chances are they had to get everyone to sign off on the new rules because of how many jurisdictions Google operates in.

Doesn’t really seem noteworthy to me.


You have presumably not read the article.

This article is discussing a message directly from one of google's lawyers.

Pointing out that google's lawyers give the advice of google's lawyers is somewhat less than helpful, as far as observations go.


This is a shockingly unhelpful discussion point when applied to corporate behavior in general. As a significant amount of bad action could be justified as "their lawyer probably advised them to do this".


I don't think it ought to be assumed that one would always apply this same line of thinking to other corporate behaviour.

In this specific case the context is about the few specific instances where this policy will not apply. Given that nearly all these instances seem to involve ongoing litigation, I applied this reasoning.


The point is that "Google just followed their lawyers' advice" is never a valid excuse. Google's lawyers are still part of Google! Lawyers can give unethical advice, and the CEO/HR/whoever makes these decisions is perfectly capable of ignoring it.


Lawyers also can't give illegal advice. No lawyer in the history of corporate lawyers has advised management to sexually harass employees yet here we are.


We continue to allow corporations to become governments in and of themselves, and to take actions that protect themselves, or push a set of goals that are synonymous with the CEOs intentions, at the cost of individual liberties. They've stretched this so that things that are clearly legal outside of work hours, and in the privacy of ones own home is cause for termination, while things that are clearly illegal in any context cannot be remedied under due process.

Western civilization literally fought wars to get a set of balances in place around free speech, religion, anti-discrimination, and freedom to pursue "happiness".

We should be very very cautious about letting companies this amount of power, especially Google and Facebook, which have shown no issues terminating people's employment, and taking corporate actions that threaten democracy for their leaderships person benefits.


Former lawyer here. My understanding is that the new rules do away with mandatory confidentiality agreements.

So it’s possible that Google made statements in pending cases that they would not have made had they known that it could become public.

As a result, they wouldn’t want to grandfather in these cases, and reasonably so (IMO).


So... are people more angry at hearing this than if Google had never announced an end to forced arbitration in the first place?


There is a difference between the two.


No?


[flagged]


A snarky implication delivered as a sidecar for a (very poor, IMO) "whatabout" does not make for tone policing.


Well, of course. It’s only fair. You can’t change a rule then go back and hold prior behaviors accountable according to the new rule. It’s just common decency.


I'm not sure how this applies here? This isn't about a retroactive change to Google's misconduct standards for its employees, so no staff are being held accountable according to a new rule.

It's also not about suits between individuals. It's employees seeking damages from Google, so there's no third party outside Google and the plaintiff who could be harmed by the switch. And the plaintiff shouldn't be harmed, because removing the requirement for arbitration wouldn't deny it to anyone who wanted it.

As far as "holding Google accountable for prior events under a new rule", that's pretty much what people were asking them to agree to in the first place. But even worse, Google's statement says all future claims - even about past events - will operate under the new rule. So Google is already going to be held accountable for past events under this rule, and this is just disadvantaging the people who already opened claims.


The prohibition against ex post facto law in government makes sense because they are ripe for abuse. But there are already checks against abuse in the private sphere, including potential litigation for wrongful termination and a desire to keep quality employees. Employees should not be able to get away with poor behavior just because it was not techincally against the rules. When my daughter exhibits a lack of judgment, I might make a new rule; but she's still going to be punished because she should have known better. Employees should know better, and if they don't, they should err on the side of not doing the thing.

Of course, that's not really what's happening here with Google. What's happening is Google stated that the would not force people into arbitration, but they're still forcing people into arbitration.


I suspect your view on this matter will be ill taken.

But beyond that. It probably is not legally possible.


It probably is not legally possible.

I wonder what legal standing a private company's "policy" has. Is it written into a contract of some sort, "if you are accused of sexual misconduct, we will follow policy X"? Are all those contracts now being updated?

Realistically, Google can handle this how they want, so I don't see why they can't change how they handle current claims (within reason, of course, I'm sure if your arbitration date is tomorrow, maybe it's bad to change that so suddenly). Of course, Google is going to want to minimize the public knowing about any of these claims, so they'll do what they can to keep it quiet.

I get the feeling that these policies have more value to marketing dept. than the legal dept. After all, there many things that constitute "sexual misconduct" that aren't illegal.


At my company I sign documents. That are tied to money. If the terms were to change -- it would be s problem.

Just because it is called a policy does not mean it can be changed without notice and back dated.

How would you feel if your insurance company retroactively changed their policies on how active auto claims were handed ? Good thing it's not legal for them to do that.

In any case. Google can't always do what the want. The have to follow laws too.

You might be able to void a policy if both the plaintiff and defendant agreed.

I agree. That this is now just a dog and pony show.


It's less of a rule, and more of a change of venue. They 100% should be holding people accountable for this kind of behavior in a public setting to make damn sure the guilty do not victimize anyone else.


> They 100% should be holding people accountable for this kind of behavior in a public setting

Can you unpack who the "they" and the "people" are here a little bit?


[flagged]


> LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D

This is just trolling and since this isn't a troll site, please don't do it. We detached this post from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18494572.


How did their support of sexual misconduct in the past further the goal of maximizing profit? Is there a known metric that shows how profitability increases after a given percentage of harassed workers?

I think it has less to do with "fiduciary obligations" and more with self serving policies that the people in charge will put in place as long as they can get away with them. Letting one of the accused walk out with a golden parachute instead of firing him without any compensation for acting in a way that openly harmed the company certainly does not play well with "fiduciary obligations".


> Is there a known metric that shows how profitability increases after a given percentage of harassed workers?

Oh my goodness yes. Getting sued? Public relations? Decreased productivity from a hostile work environment? These all affect the bottom line.

Seriously, for the love of all that matters in this universe: Take this notion that any company operates on a moral compass and throw it in the garbage. None of them do. Period. End of story. Some companies are better than others. Some leaders (read: HUMANS) do have a genuine sense of good that they make every attempt to instill into the culture of their organizations. That's amazing. I love to see that.

But this only happens when (1) the organization is already financially solvent and (2) the acts of good will won't cause the company to become financially insolvent. Which means the best companies are MOTIVATED by a moral compass, but they operate on a financial one.

This Google case is especially fucking hilarious, to watch some people in these comments (not you, but others) try to justify Google's actions under the banner of a desire to create a safe workplace. Bullshit. They only enacted these policies after a massive number of their employees walked out on their jobs, the public pressure was mounting, and they let known assholes leave on their own accord with, as you say, a golden parachute. Google is easily the most morally dubious company out there.


> Google is easily the most morally dubious company out there.

I mean, I might have put some tobacco, arms, oil, coal, chemical, and surveillance companies up there. Particularly since I don't see them leading the way on harassment, inequity, diversity, or any of the other things Google is being criticized for. It sort of seems as though they have all the same issues plus body counts. But perhaps I've missed the news, are Gazprom and Saudi Aramco famous for how well they handle sexual harassment claims?

Your point about corporate ruthlessness is a solid one, but putting Google at the head of that list seriously undersells the problem. It's worth remembering how bad things are, and how bad they can get.

Hell, now that I'm thinking of it, I'd put Chiquita higher up on the list than Google. They never actually got over the bad old days in Honduras, they were caught funding and directly arming Colombian terrorists in 2004.


I did use the word "dubious" on purpose. There are certainly more strictly evil companies out there, but the moral ground Google operates on is the definition of Dubious. Its shaky and doubtful. They're self-righteous about their morality, dating back to their classic motto "Don't Be Evil", but startlingly few of their actions, especially those directly related to their products, ever feel in line with this now tossed-aside motto. In other words, they're managed by a handful of children with Computer Science degrees and relentless ambition; the moment something goes wrong they throw up their hands and yell "we're solving problems no one else has attempted" without any introspection that maybe the problem wouldn't even exist if they didn't.

But that's not really an option for any company. So they continue on.


It absolutely furthers the goal of maximizing profit. Arbitration is faster, cheaper, and typically benefits the company. It benefits the company by:

- Giving opposing counsel less time to request information/dig through the requested information to find evidence against you because the timeline is expedited compared to a typical court trial.

- The company selects the arbitrator. How often does a company need to select an arbitrator? Not infrequently. How often does the employee seeking damages need to select an arbitrator? Almost never. If the arbitrator wants more future work who do you think they're more likely to side with? Do you think they're more likely to award damages against the company at the high end of the spectrum or the low end of the spectrum?

- Limited PR costs. How many "big" arbitration cases have you ever heard of in the press? Not many I would guess. How many "big" court cases have you heard of in the press? Bad PR can cost the company a lot in terms of the bottom line but also opportunity costs. It's difficult to measure but there are certainly some talented people who will think twice about joining the company after recent PR.


>How did their support of sexual misconduct in the past further the goal of maximizing profit? Is there a known metric that shows how profitability increases after a given percentage of harassed workers?

To look at the issue from the amoral, profit-maximizing perspective...

It's not that the harassed workers are a benefit; they are indeed a cost, in terms of lower productivity and legal risk.

Rather, it's that the difficulty of pushing back against the high-paid harassers is a cost, and insta-firing them (or even reprimanding them in a way that makes them want to leave) can hurt profitability because of the difficulty of replacing them.

And, though I shudder to say it, "being able to harass underlings" -- to some executives -- functions as a kind of non-monetary compensation.


It is an open secret that it is about self service instead of actual fiscal obligations. It is essentially the exact same thing as government corruption. It happens in every large and powerful organization essentially.

Which brings to mind the irony of how very stereotypically corporate the USSR acted with things like attributing the entire output of a coal mine to one miner to boost their productivity figures and circular shipping coal on trains to boost their transported coal metrics.


Yes... their contracts are written such that they align the self-serving motivations of the employees with the fiscal obligations to shareholders. Internet points be-damned, i find it pretty hilarious that ppl took my initial comment as being supportive of what Google did rather than a condemnation of their coporate structure!


Whose contracts? The board of directors don't have contracts; they aren't employed by the corporation. The shareholders don't have contracts; they just own an instrument of corporate ownership. Anyone employed by the corporation has contracts with the corporation, not with the board and the shareholders.

Other than your repeated assertions and slandering of anyone who disagrees with you as "SJWs", do you have anything to back you up?


So you're saying that they voluntarily chose to modify their arbitration policy for sexual harassment complaints to fulfill their fiduciary obligations and not to create a safer work environment?

How do shareholders benefit from the increased legal exposure of this new policy? And why, if everything Google does is to benefit the bottom line, are they choosing not employ this new policy retroactively? They didn't have to do any of this.


Free publicity about having a safe work place, gaining a competitive advantage with regards to attracting talent based on this new policy, being seen as a pioneer as many other large firms inevitably adopt a similar policy, which leads to further publicity, which leads to attracting more talent, etc.

Sometimes fulfilling fiduciary obligations and creating a safer work environment aren't mutually exclusive...


I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive, but there's a lot of aggressive degenerative arguing about how Google only cares about profits and nothing else in this thread. Absolutely no nuance to the argument.


_


> So you're saying Google doesn't give a shit about its net profits?

Google obviously gives a shit about its net profits.

> So you're saying that Google's board weren't all hired with the express instruction to maximise earnings per share?

Board members aren't "hired", they're elected by the shareholders. They are not employees of the corporation (usually) and they do not have contracts with shareholders. Shareholders will, obviously, vote them out if company performance suffers.


Who pays the salary & bonuses? Who owns the entity that pays the salary & bonuses?


> Who pays the salary & bonuses?

Salary and bonuses for who? The board doesn't get salary and bonuses.

> Who owns the entity that pays the salary & bonuses?

Corporate ownership is a complex topic. The oversimplification that shareholders "own" a fractional portion of the corporation is not entirely accurate and breaks down in complex cases like this. You get into share classes, the status of the corporate entity as an independent legal entity (which, in turn, goes down a rabbit hole that leads to corporations as non-natural people), and what power shareholders have over the guidance of the corporate entity.


Also, it's hardly rare for boards to make self-destructive insanely stupid decisions for what must have seemed like good reasons at the time.

Boards are not infallible, nor are the people on them. They're not even infallible at maximising profit - never mind trying to handle challenging cultural problems without being eaten alive by them.


> fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital

There is no such obligation. Please stop spreading bullshit.

Edit:

To those who don't believe me, see another post in the thread[1] or other sources on corporate law[2][3]. Note that the duty of loyalty says nothing about maximizing anything, and such a legal standard is preposterous.

[1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/myth-maximizing-shar...

[2] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/corporate-fid...

[3] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi...


What do their contracts say? Agnostic of your own judgement of the morality of their actions, company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital. It's literally the only reason the company pays them a salary from net profits.


...and who owns the corporate entity? The "owners of shares"?


Company agents are not employed by shareholders and have no contracts with them. Company agents are employed by the corporate entity.


And what are the long-term effects on returns of good employees leaving, or never coming to Google over shit like this?


Google/Alphabet get fucked sideways.

Seems you & all the fellow downvoters've mistaken my statement of fact for a statement of moral obligation...

Company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital. It's literally in their contracts: "you get paid X for improving metric Y by Z".


Seems you & all the fellow downvoters've mistaken my statement of fact for a statement of moral obligation...

Nope, it's the calling of statements "facts" when they are quite arguable nothing of the sort. Moral obligation was not at issue here.


Read a S&P500/FTSE100's Directors' contract, then get back to me...


Assigning me homework rarely wins the argument, and it's an argument I have no interest in winning in the first place. I was merely pointing out the error of your analysis.


>Company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital.

Myth: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/myth-maximizing-shar...


[dead]


We've asked you several times over the years to stop doing these throwaway guideline violations, so we've banned the main account like we said we would.


Account created 10 minutes ago. No comment history. Straight onto a political subject.


This comment seems really low effort. Adds no real content. Extraordinary claims with no citations.


> I can share that research if you like.

I'll bite. Let's see it.


You pretty clearly neither reviewed an actual transcript like that, nor "reviewed the Kavanauh/Ford case in detail with feminists", which would be a hilarious statement if there weren't people out there who took this crap seriously.


>“Google announced a prospective policy change that applies going forward to individual sex harassment and sex assault claims. This policy change does not apply retroactively to claims already compelled to arbitration.”

Given the context, the phrase "already compelled to arbitration" sounds pretty fucking disgusting. It gave me nausea just reading it.

Perhaps Google's lawyers should take slightly more care over these legal missives and maybe wonder, given the wider situation, if it makes them or their employers look like complete and utter scumbags before hitting send.


I don't get it. Why is this even controversial, let alone "fucking disgusting"? What exactly do you expect Google to do instead?

As I see it, they have 3 options:

1. Give accusers the right to choose whether to relitigate claims currently in progress, effectively allowing them to judge whether to restart their case from scratch based on how well it's currently going and forcing individuals accused of misconduct to be investigated twice for the same offence.

2. Somehow unilaterally force all current cases to be moved to the courts, removing their secrecy, and exposing the details of previously confidential claims to the world without the consent of the alleged victim.

3. Do exactly what they're currently doing.

Do you see some option that I don't? Or are you advocating for options 1 or 2? I suspect both of them would be completely illegal.


it is both legal and moral to let people restart their cases rather than arbitrating, given that arbitration is a known dead end that companies use to avoid responsibility for hurting their employees.

edit: also it's fucking disgusting because it is Google shamelessly covering their asses to protect sexual abusers and a culture of sexual abuse and prevent real justice in a retroactive inquiry. that's completely straightforward.


Forced arbitration should simply be illegal. As long as it's legal, you can't expect individual companies to not make use of it, that would be a competitive disadvantage.


I agree that forced arbitration should be illegal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean we can't criticize a company for doing it!


I didn't say you can't criticize it. I said you can't expect anything else. Are you going to go down the list of companies from A to Z criticizing everyone of them? Is that going to fix the problem?


I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it.


> I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it.

I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Let's imagine manslaughter was legal (as it has been in the past, to some degree) and I would be here arguing that it should be illegal because you can't trust people not to kill each other merely because there's a court of public opinion. Would that be morally bankrupt, or just common sense?


>I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position.

Are you a space lizard?


actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes.


> actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal.

[citation needed]

> meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes.

What's economically illiterate is to expect market participants not to exploit the rules that are in place on moral grounds. You can make a moral case against an indefinite number of things done by private enterprise, but you can't maintain negative publicity for all of them. If you don't change the rules, companies only pay lip service, nothing more. That's not ideology, that's not "veneration", that's common sense.


ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists.

I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do.


> ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists.

No, where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? Google is always in the media spotlight, they're more likely to pay lip service than others.

> I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do.

I'm not excusing anything, that's a really unfair allegation. I'm saying you are naive if you expect anything else out of the rules that are in place and that the rules need to be changed. Of course big companies yield to PR campaigns, that's a market incentive in and of itself. Yet, these arbitration clauses remain pervasive. Companies can just wait out some harassment suit that may never happen and then apologize and maybe change something.


>where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal?

The USA has had a civil war on this one.


> if it makes them or their employers look like complete and utter scumbags before hitting send.

Given Google reputation, they do not have much to lose.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: