[macspoofing]

>Because I'm responding to the very top comment about assuming good intent and the people already agreeing with it. I'm not arguing that what happened in the article is verified true.

And this is the frustrating part about this terrible article. There is simply not enough information to make a value judgment. The principle of "assuming good intent" may be a great general principle but of course, it will not and should not apply in every situation. Should it apply in this situation? I don't know. We're left having to speculate because the journalist in question didn't even bother to do basic due diligence.

>I made no claims. I asked the question.

OK I answered.

>Then you're just assuming good faith on behalf of the offending party

Like you, I made no claims either way. I wish journalists would be more responsible.

[mqrs]

I maintain that we don’t need this article to be true to debate with the response about assuming good intent, precisely because ”assume good intent” is a statement on its own and it is being positioned as general advice, therefore it is independent of the facts of the article. I get what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s relevant because no one is really picking sides between Google and the former employee.