fyoving

They are justifying it just fine, author and others seem to only want to believe critics.

1. Any bad PR resulting from firing these types would be a one time thing instead of this ongoing situation.

2. Google shouldn't accommodate the delusional and entitled.

3. Labor unions are antithetical to sound economic theory and practice, and no other company in the business supports them.

Tell that to the suits who invented the future at IBM and Bell labs.

Counter cultural types don't have a monopoly on innovation.

For one, they are would be retaliating against employees who generate bad PR for them.

For another the rest of the tech companies don't seem to enable let alone tolerate this shenanigans.

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work".

Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

They host your emails that is where this data comes from, if you don't like that then delete said emails.

The media's modus operandi is to try and implicate tech companies with supposed violations whether it's justified or not, they will gain clicks and tarnish the reputation of a hated competitor, there are no drawbacks, they also keep perpetuating the notion that utility and invention must be sacrificed on the privacy altar.

Fair point, but there are lots of reasons to skim an article and not every academic is getting rich off of hawking their books, sometimes it's an excuse to talk about their publishings, and one could get consulting gigs out of the attention.

The masses though, they don't care:

"Facebook users care less about privacy than regulators"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-growth-analysis-...

There is a difference between actual experts and academic title profiteers.

Yes it's lip service but this whole narrative about online/digital privacy was seize on by traditional media to bash tech companies while driving traffic to their properties. It also gives some academics and "experts" an outlet to promote their books.

You have the right to choose not be watched while you're going to the bathroom but the whole online privacy "controversy" is a means by which foreign countries and other interested parties try to justify stifling US tech companies it's also more nonsense for the self appointed "elites" to philosophise over and pretend to know what's best for society, regular people don't care about it nor should they.

These two are former state AGs and IMHO their kind should be barred from being part of any important deliberative body, they are prosecutors with strictly punitive mindset in a legislative body that is also supposed to encourage entrepreneurship and look after national interests, and at any rate everyone should be wary of grandstanding and populist pronouncements by elected officials.

P.S

State AG should not be an elected position.

There is nothing wrong with being "just a job", it most likely always was, the rest was just in your head.

It's better for the company to help the delusional embrace the "it's just a job" mentality ASAP so that they and the rest of us might be spared the weekly public hissy fit.

What's the evidence to any of that?

What's with the persistent narrative of google not being "just another company" and then (sadly?) becoming one? that's some fairytale nonsense.

Saying that $5 billion is "chump change" is silly in any context and on a related note I keep hearing newscasters and prodcasters bemoaning the fact that Facebook is thriving and it disturbs me to no end that these people are publicly and loudly advocating for an important and unique company to be killed off, and I'm not sure about the psychology or the motives behind it.

What's clear is that they are blaming facebook for political outcomes that are divergent from the mainstream and are conflating that with all that is negative and upsetting in the zeitgeist

A marginal Google product isn't running on a dev build of a not yet released browser, the horror!

Slavery ain't legal.

"counter to building a better product ... rgardless of the success"? That's nonsense.

It's remarkable how someone will always find a way to lambast successful companies even if it means faulting them for becoming successful and relevant in the first place.

Yet further proof that their online legislations are not about privacy but attacks on US companies.

We don't know how this person got infected or if they even work there so you can't make that conclusion.

What kind of article is that? "Google causes measles and now one of them has it".

Is that ironic? Is this journalism now?