zlacker

I actually consider the act of doublespeak potentially insinuating ill intent.

What you and what you say need to be consistent to preserve user trust and then being inconsistent shows mismanagement by senior leadership or even potentially intent to deceive or spin the situation while still implementing the policy. It’s the PR classic do one thing say another.

Edit: Oh, and then this hits almost at the same time…

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/zoom-return-to-office-an...

>>happyt+(OP)
>I actually consider the act of doublespeak potentially insinuating ill intent

I agree with this sentiment and it feels like a heuristic at this point.

I think it comes from a decade of watching when corporate officers get caught red handed then try and denial of service the bad press with their jingoistic pablum.

>>happyt+(OP)
This doublespeak should result in huge fines, but there's lobbying instead

>>dietr1+tH
And corrupt officials that accept the lobbying, which is the bad bit.

>>robert+2O
"It's not corruption, it's lobbying", the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" of politics.

>>alpaca+BZ
Well, the practice of being able to take your case to the government is a great one. The government - already paid for with free money from non-government people working - is the one letting itself be corruptable.

>>Andrew+Ia
> I agree with this sentiment and it feels like a heuristic at this point.

Well I might just take that heuristic and do some basic sentiment analysis to rank companies on their doublespeak.

>>tigerl+WX2
If you do I’d love to see the results