[leetcrew]

that's clearly a strawman interpretation of my comment.

> why would a company pay someone to publicly criticize them?

by all means, a healthy company should encourage internal critiques. but if you're going to take that criticism public, you can't expect to also collect a paycheck at the same time. do you make a habit of paying people to work against your interests?

[crawfordcomeaux]

I'm seeking to normalize community accountability practices that are pretty core to many indigenous cultures, including my Irish ancestors.

So, yeah...I'll pay for that in every organization I get involved with from here on out.

Just cause it's not normalized doesn't mean it isn't useful. The reason to do it is for the sake of actual accountability, as strictly internal accountability is nonsense.

This is the business version of "keep it in the family": it gives all kinds of toxic behaviors a shade to hide and grow in, while keeping the public from actually choosing who gets their business based on their values.

[hn8788]

"community accountability practices" just sounds like mob justice. It seems like an especially bad idea in the current environment where people who are more than happy to join in an outrage mob after only hearing one side of the story, and sometimes aren't even affected by whatever they're targeting. A "community" shouldn't be anyone who happens to agree with you on twitter.

[crawfordcomeaux]

I think what you're speaking to is the result of a lack of normalized practices actually oriented toward accountability and healing, rather than shaming, canceling, mobbing, etc.

I'm not even saying I know how to do it. I think the current environment is an indicator of a greater need for true accountability and not the theater of "justice."

I'd also say outrage mobs are the direct result of people confusing themselves with who is angering themselves. Many adults I know still insist it is other people who make them angry, instead of it being themselves who use the stimulus of others' actions to anger themselves. We need better EQ/CQ education and what you're highlighting points directly to it.

[TheOtherHobbes]

At this point a fair proportion of the planetary population is affected by FAANG's ethical stance on ad tech. It's looking likely AI is only going to make that worse.

A "community" should also not be an enforced happy smiley corporate PR face.

And mob justice can also look a lot like running people out of town because they're not properly respectful.

[SpicyLemonZest]

But how can community accountability practices work in an organization like Google, which hires from many different communities? It seems like it inevitably produces loud, angry, unresolvable conflict whenever your community and my community don't agree on a decision.

[crawfordcomeaux]

I think the difference lies between harm and disagreement. How can it work? I don't know or have all the answers, as I've never even seen community accountability in action at a small local scale.

This highlights to me the importance of learning how to do this stuff.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't think it's as complex as you're making it. Community accountability works through shared cultural standards and social pressure to conform to the status quo; Google employees don't have shared cultural standards, and the whole problem here is that some of them don't think it's right to conform to the status quo. The reason you've never seen it in action is that, in a multicultural society, it doesn't work on any scale larger than a friend group.