Silvanus said:
Gorrath said:
Extent has nothing whatsoever to do with this. The GJP incident was several industry players colluding to not hire a specific individual. That falls under the literal definition of industry blacklisting. Ubi and Bethesda did not collude to both stop speaking with Kotaku. Ignoring the collusion in order to conflate the two incidents is fallacious.
The decision not to talk to Kotaku
also fits the literal definition of a blacklist, though limited to those companies.
I'll be happy to wait for a definition of industry blacklisting (the unethical sort) that would include two companies breaking business ties with a third without conferring with one another. But then you merely used the word blacklisting and dropped the "industry" part, which I put there specifically differentiate the two. So either we're conflating industry blacklisting with the greater definition, which is a fallacious semantic game, or you're jousting at strawmen by aiming for a broader definition of blacklisting that includes ethically neutral behavior, which is not what I was talking about.
If the sticking point is the "collusion", then you're playing fast and loose there, too; that term refers to undermining open competition through deception, not merely two figures talking to eachother. If we included the latter, then every company on earth is guilty of it. It is not "modern legal and ethical thinking" that individuals from companies may not even talk about what they plan to do; I find it fairly ludicrous that people are unaware how accepted that is.
Fast and loose my backside!
From DictionarydotCom: a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy:
Merriam Webster: secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose
The Free dictionary: An often secret action taken by two or more parties to achieve an illegal or improper purpose.
Your attempt to describe the GJP incident as "two companies talking to eachother" is a gross misrepresentation of what happened and saying "if we were to include that" is a red herring in the extreme. This wasn't "two companies," it was, to my knowledge, at least as many senior game's journalists as there were companies involved in the Silicon Valley hiring collusion scandal. And they weren't just "talking to eachother" they were deciding, as a group, to blacklist someone from being hired, which is usually illegal and at least unethical.
As for blacklisting, here's a list of laws by U.S. State: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter10-9.html
Note Arizona: A blacklist is any understanding or agreement that communicates a name, or list of names, or descriptions between two or more employers, supervisors, or managers in order to prevent an employee from engaging in a useful occupation.
Or Colorado: Publishing or maintaining a blacklist. Conspiring or contriving to prevent a discharged employee from securing other employment
Or Florida: Agreeing or conspiring with another person or persons in order to get someone fired or prevent someone from obtaining employment.
Ect. ect.
So yes, it is modern (and sometimes not so modern) legal and ethical thinking that representatives with the power to keep someone from getting hired in an industry using that power to keep someone from getting hired is blacklisting, is collusion and is illegal/unethical.
And just to add some perspective, every company I have ever worked for has rules about what HR can share with otehr companies about terminated employees. Specifically, to a man, every one of them will only tell another employer the dates which an ex-employee was employed there and their job description. They will not share any details about why the employee no longer works with them specifically because of the threat of coming under scrutiny for illegal blacklisting. And if you want to see what happens when a group of people with influence in a company chat over e-mail about who not to hire and why, google Silicon Valley Hiring Collusion.
Now I don't want to misrepresent anything you've said so please do wring me out if you feel I've misconstrued anything you've written or meant. Also, since we are discussing not just GJP but their comparability to Ubi and Bethesda and the breaking of their relationship with Kotaku, I'll concede if you can show that what either of them did was illegal or unethical in comparable fashion. Thus far, I've seen no reason to think they've acted unethically, let alone illegally.