In an adversarial case like this, that seems to make sense.
The issue is that there are many, many groups that would happily sue a company to achieve a hostile objective (get access to proprietary insights, change public opinion, etc.) irrespective of the merits of their argument.
Accountability matters, but 100% observability and transparency do not automatically deliver it.
As a startup founder I tried, As many other founders have. In my circle we all learned the same lesson. Self-interested observers could pollute “the commons” very quickly and break the company culture.
The issue is that there are many, many groups that would happily sue a company to achieve a hostile objective (get access to proprietary insights, change public opinion, etc.) irrespective of the merits of their argument.
Accountability matters, but 100% observability and transparency do not automatically deliver it.
As a startup founder I tried, As many other founders have. In my circle we all learned the same lesson. Self-interested observers could pollute “the commons” very quickly and break the company culture.