If this is an entirely corporate offering, with supporting EULA - you could accept it as simple monitoring requirements. But without that clear separation of corporate, and potential end user devices, this feels more to me perverse - like spying - than anything.
You are removing the right for someone to make a mistake.
That being said; the idea of a system to which a conversation is mutually engaged (“contract”), but to which a single party can immediately and entirely redact their contributions is flawed at best.
Feels like some kind of in-between is required - hopefully with clear end user understanding.
Slack already does offer an in-between, as you can allow edits and redaction for a specific time frame, after which the chat history becomes immutable to all non-admins.
Doesn't stop the email with the original message though (you can get emails of messages). I once saw a coworker cussing out someone while the coworker was asleep. By the time we all woke up, the message had been edited into something nice and cordial. But knowing how much they were actually frustrated was a hint (at least to me) that I needed to take the cordial response seriously.
Being able to see the original message someone shot off in anger and then revised into something nice is really handy as a manager. Especially if the entire team is remote and you can't tell things by body language.
I know it should probably be on the org itself to inform new users that those settings are being used, but I wish that Slack would do a better job of letting users know too. It's a weird experience noticing a typo in a message and not having the option to edit without any feedback as too _why_.
> You are removing the right for someone to make a mistake
You aren't stopping them from making a mistake, and you aren't even stopping them from removing evidence from their PoV. You're merely retaining all communication on your side.
If this is an entirely corporate offering, with supporting EULA - you could accept it as simple monitoring requirements. But without that clear separation of corporate, and potential end user devices, this feels more to me perverse - like spying - than anything.
You are removing the right for someone to make a mistake.
That being said; the idea of a system to which a conversation is mutually engaged (“contract”), but to which a single party can immediately and entirely redact their contributions is flawed at best.
Feels like some kind of in-between is required - hopefully with clear end user understanding.