So we disagree on the best tactics to take here. In particular, I think the embarrassing tech companies in public works when it's done by either other tech people OR it gets into the media where the bottom line could be impacted. This

That doesn't make me 'cringe^inf' or boil down my tactical critiques to '"she's not asking nicely enough'. I presumed you were attempting to call me out for tone policing, and usually the point of that call out is to protect the feelings of the person being critiqued. Or to prevent the person making the tone argument from making it for biased reasons, but as I am ALSO a female librarian, that doesn't really apply here.

> you seem to have an odd perspective on all of this.

Yes, I imagine I would. I differ from both HN's average readership and the average librarian enough that my views on things are odd. I also did some time in communications work and I can't turn that off either. It's like seeing poorly written code for me.

the call out was more in line with a general disagreement with what i saw as a tech industry apologist take. i don't think people who work in the tech industry are bad people, but if people are losing housing because of their products, inventions, or service policies, then it appears that they have certainly (possibly inadvertently!) done some very bad things and that needs to be acknowledged plainly and clearly.

no masters need to be pleased, no egos massaged (it's time for that obnoxious culture to die). they done bad and it's time to make it right.

embarrassing companies in public is an old tactic that predates consumer technology companies by a large margin. in the old days letters would appear in trade rags or newspapers to the same effect.

also, thank you for your time in public service.

That's fair, that would be a decent read on the comment assuming average HN demographics. I am a librarian who was raised by hackers, so I was programming and playing around online for years before starting library work and eventually getting my MLIS. So I was critiquing her from a colleague's POV of 'this clearly isn't your area of expertise, why didn't you ask a colleague who does know this area so the letter was stronger?' I wouldn't write a letter about, say, the impact of social media on kids' media without talking to some of the children's librarians I know, since I don't know much about children's services.

Also libraries have a major cultural issue of their own, which is that they love credentialism and gatekeeping, and part of that manifests through assumptions that they and only they know the right thing to do (you'll note she suggests that Google contact her for more information rather than perform their own research or, God forbid, asking the userbase directly). Related to this, librarians, because of their vocational awe, are very, very susceptible to forms of communication that affirm their righteousness, and I see signs of that in this letter. From a communications standpoint, it's just not ideal to ask people do something by shaming them and assuming a stance of superiority while ignoring some context. That's just asking to be dismissed.

So that's where I'm coming from.

I actually greatly agree that tech culture needs to change.

> embarrassing companies in public is an old tactic that predates consumer technology companies by a large margin. in the old days letters would appear in trade rags or newspapers to the same effect.

Same problem, though. Embarrassing a company in a trade rag means that your employees are going to be judged by their peers and you're going to have a hard time hiring new employees. Using a newspaper meant that it went through some sort of editorial gatekeeping and the newspaper determined it was an issue that was likely to blow up. There were also plenty of cranky letters to the editor/opinion pieces in newspapers (especially smaller ones) that were dismissed as 'lol old people be cranky'. You have to have a strategy there.

I actually miss public service a lot.