Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

That's actually a fantastic response.

- Reminds reviewers to avoid libel, since it may undergo legal review.

- Tells potential employees or customers that this is how the company responds to bad press/negativity (i.e. disproportionately).

- Doesn't subject Glassdoor to potential libel since the statement is objectively true (see court records).

Although I won't get too positive about Glassdoor as I've read negative reviews disappear[0].

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/8tfhxv/glassdoor_...

View on HN

I was hired via a consultancy firm (Ness Technologies) that would have me work in PayPal chennai office back in 2012. A new CEO came and basically reduced work force drastically, the worst mass layoffs I have ever seen. The environment then changed to worse rapidly etc. etc.

I decided to quit the toxic environment. Contractually I was supposed to get 2 months of basic pay, but Ness and Paypal conspired together and concocted a story where I have falsely accused someone of sexual harassasment and since it is false, I can be fired without that 2 months of money. Then they asked my to nicely sign a letter where I forfeit that salary willingly or they will report "this gross misconduct" to future employers.

My review in Glassdoor lasted a year.

PayPal wouldn’t open themselves up to that risk. 100% the type of shit I see consultancies pull, especially smaller ones or regional ones. Any with HQ in US wouldn’t risk it.

Unless the 2 contacts from each company had a personal vendetta against you. Then I can see it.

I think you're violating a couple HN guidelines here: assume good faith and "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

Maybe not in USA.

Reminder that libel vs truth is dependent on where you are. In the US you don’t risk libel when speaking the truth but there are places where this isn’t the case.

To add some specifics, I think the common case outside of the US is one where the published elements must both (a) be true, and; (b) have been published for some "legitimate purpose". The phrase "legitimate purpose" is generally understood to mean "whose primary purpose is not to cause harm or nuisance". An example of legitimate purpose would be governmental transparency. An example in which something true could still be considered libelous might be notifying your ex-spouse's employer of his/her public intoxication charge for the purposes of stunting his/her career.

(I'm basing this general comment on my understanding of French law. I believe it works similarly in many, if not most, European countries. I hope some actual legal experts can weigh in!)

My understanding is that a statement can only be found to be libellous if it is false. If it’s true, it’s not libel.

You are saying this isn’t the case in some places outside the US. Which places, and how so?

It would surprise me if it is called libel in those countries. The more likely translation would be defamation.

In Sweden for example there is publisher responsibility which can limit truthful but harmful statement. Anti-doxxing laws has a similar purpose. There are also countries where people have a right to be forgotten, especially once a person has served their time in prison.

Even in the US it depends on jurisdiction: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/feder...

And if it affects the state, truth wasn't/isn't always a defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel?wprov=sfla1

And in other legal systems, the value of truth depends on whether the case is a private or public one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation?wprov=sfla1

Look at the recent reporting around Shinzo Abe's death in Japan for a really good example of different libel laws. In Japan the burden of proof lies with the entity publishing the information.

A lot of the initial headlines were things like "Abe collapses at rally, shots heard" even though the article itself had a video of him getting shot and then falling down. Others just had a headline that equated to "Abe collapses during rally, currently in critical condition" without even mentioning a shooter.

Here's an interesting article about it: https://www.tofugu.com/japan/sued-in-japan/

Zuru's actions here speak volumes. Glassdoor's warning is more of a red flag than any review could ever be. They Streisand Effected themselves.

If they really wanted to make a statement they would boot them from their platform.

This is both more fair and more informative than censoring the company altogether.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com