The CEO of Google was busted by his emails for conspiring to suppress wages.
WikiLeaks recently released a 2014 email[1] from Eric where he appears to conspire with the Clinton campaign/dnc to have "low paid permanent employees".
Since many attempts to convince you to use this site as intended have failed, we've banned your account.
If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
More like acquiescing to Apple's demands that Google do that, and they did quite actively, but not at his/Google's initiation. Which doesn't change the crime that much.
The greater point is that the CEO of a company with digital user assets, let me call them, can be thoroughly evil, while company policy and enforcement keeps his hands from directly tampering with those assets.
Silently changing someone's postings is one of the vilest betrayals of trust a platform can commit, the only worst I can think of is forging new ones out of whole cloth, and if that happens without major changes resulting in the company, that says a great deal about it as a whole, and whether you should have any dealings with it, especially seeing as such assets have been used to criminally convict people, and specifically one Rowan O'Connell for this company.
CEO of Google emails being used in a court of law to secure a negative outcome for Google, is off-topic in a sub thread about the CEO of Google being able to edit Google emails and other data?
Did Eric challenge the authenticity of the emails? I've never heard him do so.
I now understand why you couldn't specify in what way my comment was "off-topic".
More likely it's because the comment has nothing to do with editing users' content — unless it's meant to suggest that someone else faked Eric Schmidt's email (from the time 5+ years ago when he was CEO of Google) to incriminate him.
The comment has everything to do with editing content. Schmidt was effectively convicted on the content of his emails. I don't think Schmidt was able to edit an email used in that case.
It is a positive example of what the poster I responded to was claiming.
Additionally, this CEO (now of Alphabet) has continued to engage in seemingly illegal behavior over Google email. I'm not aware of Eric disputing any of these allegations, even though I have confronted him on them multiple times.
The broader topic is about some golang moderators not wanting to associate with a company because of that company's actions. The downvoted comment simply extends the reasoning to other areas. It's pretty relevant imo.
WikiLeaks recently released a 2014 email[1] from Eric where he appears to conspire with the Clinton campaign/dnc to have "low paid permanent employees".
[1] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262
E: bots are out?