> And, it's not a court of law. At best, it's "allegedly moved files when they weren't supposed to".
Are you operating under the assumption that nothing should ever be stated as a fact unless determined by a court of law? Because that's not how I think of things.
(I do agree that Google is a biased actor here. If I hear that Margaret Mitchell disputes moving files in contravention of company policy I will give her the benefit of the doubt. But my default assumption will be that everyone is telling the truth about basic facts.)
Are you operating under the assumption that nothing should ever be stated as a fact unless determined by a court of law? Because that's not how I think of things.
(I do agree that Google is a biased actor here. If I hear that Margaret Mitchell disputes moving files in contravention of company policy I will give her the benefit of the doubt. But my default assumption will be that everyone is telling the truth about basic facts.)