he's been talking a lot recently without releasing much at all. Wonder what he's got. If it's about when Schmidt was CEO why wait till now?

Although given that Google seems ever more obsessed with collecting/retaining data I guess it's just as relevant...

How does it benefit by keeping data forever though? Of what use is aged data?

It doesn't. They need a constant stream of new data for their business model to work. Thus, they benefit from continuously collecting data on users.

So why do they store indefinitely? If they stated a retention period openly they'd get much less criticism over privacy.

I'd assume for machine learning developments, specifically as training data and back testing. Build a new model with 3x the data you had before or be able to retrospectively see how a model would have performed over 3 years rather than 1.

I think the answer to the question in the last paragraph is 'yes'.

I do dispute that the brigade are 'well-meaning' though. It is often very much for their own ends, be that in their student union or their career. They are often willing to cause a lot of damage in the name of their cause.

There is some great literature coming through against it though; Tom Slater's "Unsafe Spaces" is excellent. As is lots of the recent stuff by Joanna Williams.

Person 4's fascist solipsism is astounding. She has transferred the "toxicity" and "unacceptability"in her own mind onto the whole team.

A song was referred to but there was no actual mention of sexual assault. The song is not "completely unacceptable" as it is obviously commonly known and legally sold. It is therefore acceptable in the workplace, referred to as it actually was.

Person1 seems to be genuinely sorry as well. Probably person1 was fearing for his job over what seems to me to be a harmless joke.

Sending an email to the entire company instead of talking to the person in a private message is probably the height of Shame Culture. Oh and then publishing this in the news too.

It's also clear that she has listened to the song enough to know the words too. So she was happy offending herself.

Good point.

I don't know the song myself. If I worked at Apple I'd have reported person 1 for not being inclusive enough...

> It's also clear that she has listened to the song enough to know the words too.

I've never listened to the song, and the exchange in the thread was sufficient to inform me of the information that it complained about, to wit, that it was a song referencing sexual assault.

Its not like the exchange was at all subtle or opaque.

I'm aware of lots of offensive things that don't belong at work.

The question here is was what was written in that email offensive and not to be written in the workplace...

Well, this was a chatroom. I do think it's important to recognize the level of planning which goes into what someone is saying and adjust expectations accordingly.

Now that our communication tools are capturing everything we are saying in real-time, do we truly expect 30,000 people to never make a comment that could possibly offend someone else?

I do wonder if just reading a comment like this in a company chatroom (along with an immediate apology) requires taking a month off, if perhaps there isn't a reasonable accommodation that could be made here to help Danielle be successful at Apple.

How many songs do you find offensive but listen to often enough to memorize the words?

Where does it say that she memorized the words? I've never heard the song but I've heard about it and know the "hide your kids" bit. It's not like she's reciting the Gettysburg Address here.

Lots of things are sold legally and commonly known, but are still not acceptable to discuss in a workplace.

I'm struggling to think of some examples. Perhaps you could tell us what you have deemed to be "unacceptable".

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be. What is sold legally bu unacceptable to discuss in the workplace?

errr sex toys?

But why should that be inappropriate to discuss?

Says who? You and a few others? Lots of people disagree so maybe you are in a tough shit scenario here.

Unless you actually have got someone fired for an innocuous comment. Then it's tough shit for them, I suppose.

> Says who? You and a few others?

Google "telling women to smile" (no quotes) should prove enlightening. If you want something more specific, I've provided two references in the post below.

Thanks for the links. I read the first one. I guess we just disagree.

I am of the opinion minor discomforts are things we have to deal with/adapt to. Especially when there is work to do. You seem to be of the opinion that personal discomforts are something that we should avoid causing as a matter of the upmost importance.

I think we have to agree to disagree.

> You seem to be of the opinion that personal discomforts are something that we should avoid causing as a matter of the upmost importance.

It costs you nothing to not say something sexist to women. So it's pretty much a no-brainer to not say something sexist to them.

> I am of the opinion minor discomforts are things we have to deal with/adapt to.

Why would you want to be the minor discomfort that people have to adapt to?

Strawman. I never said I did.

I just pointed out that you can choose to get offended by small stuff or you can just get on with things...

After all, someone saying "smile" to someone else really is small stuff.

"I am sorry you chose to get offended."

People have said that, or things along that line to me. I've said it to others.

"Would you ever say that to a male colleague? Would anyone?"

Out of context I'd imagine your question was about something that is actually serious or significant. Unbelievable.

"I'll remove that from things I say".

If there is no bad intent, why should you? The answer is that a snowflake could get you fired but the rhetorical question stands.

Does Google not have any interest in differential privacy practices?

That would run counter to their business model. They want to know exactly who you are.

They have used it to help anonymize data when collaborating.

I think they'd have a lot more trust if they explicitly gave information on their data retention periods.

The US has remarkably weak privacy laws, does it not? As in there aren't really any laws on data retention, pseudonymization etc. let me know if I've got the wrong impression.

And if "delete" means delete it's probably not an issue.

But does "delete" mean delete?

That’s another question. I’m just saying that I was a bit surprised that people were reacting so strongly to something that had been there all along but that they had not bothered to look for. If they really cared so much, wouldn’t they have checked for it themselves rather than waiting for someone else to find it?