Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: It's a lovely day in the neighborhood

Author:Joshua Allen
Posted:9/16/2000; 10:28:37 PM
Topic:It's a lovely day in the neighborhood
Msg #:21430 (In response to 21424)
Prev/Next:21429 / 21431

A fairly spoken answer to my question. I note you don't actually characterize the policy, so I assume that particular policy or some meta policy stipulates that you not do so. I asked the question mainly to demonstrate whether you were allowed to state what the policy is. I think this is an interesting meta issue in trust.

No, I just don't have the text in front of me. It is not long, just a few sentences, and something like "don't claim to be speaking officially for the company, don't make threats, do other illegal things, etc." I would be very surprised if there is anything at all saying we're not allowed to talk about policies. In fact, there are not that many rules and regulations about most things -- the most important policy, fiercely enforced but never documented, is "Don't do anything stupid". You've got to hire people that you can trust to use good judgement.

On the other hand, when you see damaging e-mails widely circulated in the press, threads of conversation captured from the past and plastered out of context, you might be really paranoid about what you say. Whole people are hard to define, and nobody wants themselves defined selectively by someone who is "out to get you". Only now that all communications are so recoverable is this an issue. I maintain that "all have said damning things and fall short of immunity from slander." I personally love the way that the Internet lets me communicate and explore ideas with people; this is very much a two-way medium, so I know that we can progressively reach an understanding or even agreement on things. These things usually take several successive volleys as we seek to clarify what we really meant and as we approach a shared point of view. But despite my enthusiasm for this new medium, I must also be aware that anything I say publicly could tomorrow find itself on the front page of the NY Times, characterized as the official stance of the company I love. I mean, if it takes us twenty messages each to explain ourselves to one another, and we both already share common interests, what is the possibility that the things we say will be a fair portrayal of us for the random stranger who by the way has very different motives from ours? These are questions that I think are not yet adequately addressed by existing methods; the Internet changes the substance of the question.

So there is another issue in trust. When I post something, do I trust the broad audience with access to this message will use what I say ethically? Is there any possibility that the things I say could be misused or mis-represented in a lawsuit? There is no policy on this, and it is something that definitely tests "good judgement". I mean, for a smart software developer, it is easy to find a million possible chances for misuse in any innocent e-mail, and crafting a message that cannot possibly be misconstrued becomes a gargantuan task. Every e-mail becomes yet another risk that your enemies will pull out some ammunition to use against you. Every message sent that expresses the slightest bit of opinion is cause for a knot in your gut.

As always, thanks for reading my un-breve rants :-)

-J

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:44 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.