Given the latest from our 'anonymous whistleblower' I do wonder why he/she has not hooked up with someone that was robbed, furnished them with the evidence and taken the big G to court.
Taking the 'anonymous whistleblower' route is fine if you are taking on the government or one of their agencies because the government puts themselves above the law. But using 'Pastebin' to be judge, jury and executioner in this case doesn't seem that prudent. A court of law would have sufficed.
The fact is, unsubstantiated accusations whether true or not are just that - unsubstantiated, so unless any actual evidence comes to light I don't see any point reading anything more about this unless it is:
A) A response from Google
B) A confirmed googler or ex-googler going on the record about it
C) Actual evidence - doesn't have to be rock solid but something substantial. And it has to show that this was a matter of policy (whether explicit or implied) - one rogue team doing this, whilst bad, does not constitute the scandal that the poster described.
Draw your own conclusion, but the original "leak" is very repetitive and doesn't provide any solid evidence. Sounds like someone got banned and has a chip on their shoulder, or at most an ex-employee who had a bad time.
7 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 25.0 ms ] threadits interesting to see censorship at work here
Please don't make claims you don't know anything about.
Taking the 'anonymous whistleblower' route is fine if you are taking on the government or one of their agencies because the government puts themselves above the law. But using 'Pastebin' to be judge, jury and executioner in this case doesn't seem that prudent. A court of law would have sufficed.
The fact is, unsubstantiated accusations whether true or not are just that - unsubstantiated, so unless any actual evidence comes to light I don't see any point reading anything more about this unless it is:
A) A response from Google B) A confirmed googler or ex-googler going on the record about it C) Actual evidence - doesn't have to be rock solid but something substantial. And it has to show that this was a matter of policy (whether explicit or implied) - one rogue team doing this, whilst bad, does not constitute the scandal that the poster described.
Draw your own conclusion, but the original "leak" is very repetitive and doesn't provide any solid evidence. Sounds like someone got banned and has a chip on their shoulder, or at most an ex-employee who had a bad time.