Hacker News Reader

Comment by nivenkos | Hacker News Reader

Also takes huge balls to publish an article about it publicly (rather than just resigning quietly).

I'd be worried about being sued for defamation, etc.

IANAL, but I think he didn't write anything that would put him in danger; plus, if Amazon would sue him, it would be one of the worst moves from a PR perspective.

He's Canadian and lives in Canada. Canadian laws on libel and defamation might be less oppressive than US ones (hopefully they're not as bad as in the UK).

US laws on libel and defamation are shockingly good. Free speech is woven into our culture and the Constitution. This post is squarely in the center of what is meant to be protected.

UK laws are so horrible that the USA passed a law that UK libel judgements are not enforceable here. See https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10940211 for more.

Canada is somewhere between the two.

Incidentally the country with the worst libel laws in the world is Australia.

I'm pretty sure South Korea wins that contest: libel is a criminal offense and truth is not a sufficient defense.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/fighting-for-jus...

Ouch. You’re right.

Too bad I can no longer edit my comment

> A growing number of alleged sex abusers are seeking to use legal actions of their own to force victims into silence or into dropping their accusations.

> Filing a report to police is not in itself grounds for a defamation action, but if a rape victim goes public with their allegations, a criminal complaint can be filed against them.

My God, that's horrifying.

UK libel laws aren't that bad for situations like this — if he were sued in the UK, he could rely on the defence of honest opinion and I imagine he would prevail.

Agreed. This takes more courage than quitting itself, in my opinion. What if he wrote this letter, sent it to the media, and then worked in good faith within Amazon to change things for the better? That seems like the hardest road, and also the one that might make the most difference.

As he said, you don’t go to the media when you’re a VP at a company. You go through channels. Anything else -would- make you radioactive, because it means you can’t be trusted to work at fixing things that you carry some responsibility for as a senior leader.

Caveat: companies where everyone is a VP probably have another title that denotes senior leadership: Managing Director, Partner, etc.

While I see where you're coming from, "that's not how it's done" might not be the right answer when the things that are happening are already crossing ethical boundaries that are more serious than breaking with corporate traditions.

I think I would agree that making media rounds would be a crude move, but there are actions you can take along a continuum before that (like this blog post) that might help apply external pressure while still having access to the internal levers.

It reminds me a bit of Congresspeople who gain the courage to speak honestly after they've left their government roles. Yes, it's still courageous, and there are good reasons not to speak out while you're inside the system, but damn, you've just given up your best chance at making actual change.

Something I didn’t know before I became a VP at a middling tech co — as a senior leader, your actions are considered more reflective of the company in general and specifically legally. Obvious in hindsight, but an underling that gets fired is considered representative of not much. A VP, even if they get fired, opens the company to accusations that the behavior they were fired for is representative of the company, because of their role.

For roles where you are a voice of the company, you need people who will use channels, because the alternative is literally bad for the company in ways that are very concrete.

Put more viscerally, I would not want one of my peers going to the media before they talk to me and give me a chance to address their concerns.

That is something I'm aware of, which is why I think it should only be done in conjunction with communicating through proper channels. Perfect example is the Navy captain who was fired, and may be reinstated. He went through proper channels, plus a little more, because he recognized this needed solving. He could have also just resigned and then went public, but instead he stuck it out until he was removed. My opinion: more courageous.

I very much hesitate to say which is more or less courageous. Certainly it takes fortitude to sit through the shitstorm that would result when you go to the media while you're still an employee. However you're still being paid, and forcing them to fire you, so there's some offsetting benefits.

He did go through the proper channels:

"At that point I snapped. VPs shouldn’t go publicly rogue, so I escalated through the proper channels and by the book. I’m not at liberty to disclose those discussions, but I made many of the arguments appearing in this essay. I think I made them to the appropriate people. ¶

That done, remaining an Amazon VP would have meant, in effect, signing off on actions I despised. So I resigned."

I think you're reading something I didn't say. I was responding to the comment that said he should have gone public while still an employee.

Ah, my mistake, I thought you were suggesting that he didn't go through proper channels when he went public.

The Streisand Effect helps to some degree there.

There don’t really seem to be any factual claims in the article which weren’t previously public?

it isn't defamation if it is true and I think everything not pertaining to Tim Bray was already a matter of public record.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com