I regret, occamrazor, that your interpretation and proposed facts reduce to an absurd interpretation of this conversation, and are wrong, respectively.

1. You are wrong that all companies you know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies.

Before we get to your interpretation, first let's look at the proposed fact that all companies you know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies. There are extremely clear examples such as Uber which actively did not have such a policy as well as very actively keep regulators from enforcing laws against them: https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+regulators - read those links. "Uber used an elaborate secret program to hide from government regulators"; "Justice Department begins criminal probe into Uber's use of software to help drivers evade local regulators."

Here are Uber's 14 official cultural values: https://www.quora.com/What-are-Ubers-14-core-cultural-values which include "always be hustling" and "let builders build". One definition of hustle is a fraud or swindle, or obtaining illicitly. At any rate none of those values had anything like "comply with applicable laws." Likewise AirBNB certainly did not have a core policy of complying with hotel and zoning regulations.

Objectively speaking, it is absolutely false that "comply with applicable laws" is an actual policy at all companies you know of. You're simply mistaken about the world.

But let's step away from this and see why your interpretation is also wrong.

2. Your interpretation if you were right about 1 is wrong

So your facts themselves are wrong but let us assume the counterfactual that your facts are true, and that "all companies" have a "comply with applicable laws" in their policies.

Under your interpretation "comply with applicable laws" also subsumes "don't harrass people based on a protected class" since that's illegal.

Continuing with your (wrong) interpretation, when jsjohnst writes about that statement, "if it didn't exist at a job, I'd never join said company" then it's nonsense given that no such company can exist under your proposed interpretation.

So it is like saying "I would never join a company that did not abide by the laws of physics." Under your interpretation, a nonsense statement. (All companies abide by the laws of physics; all companies have a policy of "comply with applicable laws" under your wrong facts, and under your wrong interpretation this implies not harrassing people based on a protected class.)

Your interpretation changes jsjohnst's statement to be as meaningful as declaring he would not work for a company that did not abide by the laws of physics. Clearly he has no reason to express such a sentiment.

Therefore your interpretation must also be rejected from this conversation.

-

I am sorry to be so harsh but as we are talking about values and policies, we cannot introduce wrongness on so many levels, because the results are disastrous.

I hope you do not feel that I have made this personal. I attacked only a 1-line interpretation you have offered and clearly you are free to change your mind. I do respect your contributions to hackernews and believe you are right on many other things, however, not this issue.