Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#241

Post by [deleted] »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #229
dopamean wrote: post #201

I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensib…

Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that women are more interested in people/relations while men are more interested in things. regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? I can totally understand the author on this as I spent several years tr…

[deleted]

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#242

Post by doubleshame »

edynoid wrote: post #233
davidreiss wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep politics/religion out of work. I agree with this. But given how political google is ( remember google's arab spring movement, it's lgbt stance, etc ), maybe google should also be political/religious neutral. Every July, google changes it's frontpage to state their pro-lgbt political stance. > its another to broadcast it to co workers. He didn't broadcast it to his coworkers. It was an internal discussion. > Bo…

This sounds like that weird right-wing notion of "censorship", that has become popular recently. Let me elaborate a little… When I hear "censorship" I am thinking of government agents sitting in newspaper editorial rooms striking out all statements in an article that does not align with the government's point of view. It means actively suppressing certain kinds of information from being distributed. What is happening…

Google firing him may just be good business. Time will tell.

More alarming is how people and the media have misrepresented and reacted to the content, even if they disagree with it.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#243

Post by unityByFreedom »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #229
dopamean wrote: post #201

I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensib…

Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that women are more interested in people/relations while men are more interested in things. regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? I can totally understand the author on this as I spent several years tr…

> regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad?

Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women have a harder time leading. That conclusion is not supported by any of his sources. He is judging their aptitude there, so I think dopamean's example is reasonable.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#244

Post by fwn »

tchaffee wrote: post #174
fwn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure whether a management decision to remove the author is helping or hurting the goal to create an environment that isn't intimidating. ..because - compared to what was written in the memo - this is a very intimidating thing to do.

> this is a very intimidating thing to do. It should be. If violating the CoC has no consequences then there should be no CoC in the first place. The CoC makes it clear that some actions and some types of speech are entirely unwelcome at the company. The memo also makes it clear that if you have a minority viewpoint that does not violate the CoC , then you should be encouraged to express those viewpoints. It even gav…

I do not know their full code of conduct. However, the part referenced by Pichai did not help to decrease uncertainty at all.

This is problematic since the toxic effect of uncertainty and ideological supression at the work place is not mitigated by it being produced through arbitrary executives or an executives arbitrary interpretation of some given code of conduct.

edit: If the purpose of the code of conduct is to create this uncertainty, than that alone should be reason enough for the code to be improved.

edit2: And of course, this specific code of conduct did not generate the legitimicy it should have created, which is why we are talking about this incidence.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#245

Post by davidreiss »

edynoid wrote: post #233
davidreiss wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep politics/religion out of work. I agree with this. But given how political google is ( remember google's arab spring movement, it's lgbt stance, etc ), maybe google should also be political/religious neutral. Every July, google changes it's frontpage to state their pro-lgbt political stance. > its another to broadcast it to co workers. He didn't broadcast it to his coworkers. It was an internal discussion. > Bo…

This sounds like that weird right-wing notion of "censorship", that has become popular recently. Let me elaborate a little… When I hear "censorship" I am thinking of government agents sitting in newspaper editorial rooms striking out all statements in an article that does not align with the government's point of view. It means actively suppressing certain kinds of information from being distributed. What is happening…

> This sounds like that weird right-wing notion of "censorship"

I'm not right-wing, whatever that means nowadays. I'm what you would call a liberal from NY.

> When I hear "censorship" I am thinking of government agents sitting in newspaper editorial rooms striking out all statements in an article that does not align with the government's point of view.

Really? So if google blocks all lgbt content, it wouldn't be censorship? Sure there is government censorship, but there is also academic, corporate, cultural, etc censorship. In the US, there was a time when the media refused to show movies/tv shows/etc with interracial or homosexual content. Wouldn't you call that censorship?

> What is happening here, looks more like this: a Google employee publishes an email. Lots of people in the company find the content objectionable.

The unofficial google employee polls seem to indicate he has as much support as he has detractors. But that's besides the point. My argument is that there are many google employees who aren't fans of lgbt, atheist, liberal, etc stances either. Why are only one groups' feelings considered? If many google employees feel offended by some google employee's open lgbt support, should google fire the pro-lgbt employees?

My question is where does it end? If a google employee has a LGBT flag, should that person be fired?

> There is a difference between a right to express your opinion, which I support, and a right not to face any resistance or social consequences for voicing that same opinion.

So you support lgbt and atheists being persecuted in other countries right? They have a right to express their opinions but they deserve resistence and social consequences?

How about everyone deserves the right to their opinion and EVERYONE deserves to be protected from bullying and intimidation?

All this guy did was have a open INTERNAL discussion that was created by GOOGLE ITSELF. Another google employee who was offended leaked this information and then this guy with honest intentions was persecuted.

> You can't cry censorship every time you are criticized for something you said.

Of course not. But the guy lost his job?

I'm all for criticizing the guy. But the mindless attacks against him and him losing a job is what I am against. Okay?

I believe everyone should be able to criticize and be opened to criticize. I don't think anyone should be persecuted, attacked and oppressed over their opinions.

As I said, if this guy got fired for making pro-lgbt statements and it offended a bunch of christian employees and google fired him, would you be defending google? I highly doubt it.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#246

Post by mc32 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #239
mc32 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They advocate for inclusion but oftentimes want their kind of inclusion. For example they may want women to go out and vote, so long as they vote for their candidate. How dare they "vote against their self interest". Like when Hispanics get ostracized for voting republican as if they owe it to Democrats to vote for them.

You are conflating two different issues. Voting is always better than not voting, even when it seems as if your vote makes no difference. Aside from that though, yes, it is bizarre when people vote for candidates who have a track record of screwing over people like them. This isn't unique to women.

It's only bizarre from your point of view, or mine. These people are making rational decisions. Some blacks voted for Trump because they also believed in the things he espouses over some individually significant issue. Affluent male whites voted for Hillary when the left were saying Republicans only favor rich people, etc. so "voted against their self interest". People are complicated.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#247

Post by pgodzin »

IshKebab wrote: post #169
unethical_ban wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he went too far when he suggested women are inherently less capable in the computer sciences than men. Saying diversity training sucks, or that Google should re-evaluate how they encourage diversity, or that men are getting a raw deal, would have been tolerable.

Would he have gone too far to suggest that women are inherently physically weaker than men? Or that they are inherently longer-lived than men? What about that they are inherently less interested in football?

Probably, because longer-lived and interest in football are not inherent biologically. A male baby is not born interested in football, it is socialized. Men work more dangerous jobs and are socialized into more unhealthy behaviors, diets, etc that can result in lower lifespan than women.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#248

Post by camus2 »

dopamean wrote: post #201

I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensib…

> I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed to work and would love to hear some suggestions.

The solution is entrepreneurship, that's all. Be your own boss as soon as possible during your career so you can manage your business the way you see fit. If you want to hire more black people then hire more black people. If you want to hire more women then do so as well.

That's also true with the person that got fired. If he thinks Google's policies are detrimental to productivity, then he has to put his money where his mouth is and go start a business where he can implement his own hiring policies. The guy should have quit then publish his paper, because he can't expect some kind of political neutrality in a clearly progressive-leaning business.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#249

Post by doubleshame »

rtx wrote: post #119
pimmen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's assume this guy knows statistics; by lowering the rate of false-negatives, you raise the rate of false-positives. This means that he's heavily implying Google has employed undeperforming engineers with these practices.

Isnt that whats affirmative action is about. People need to own it. Yes skills may vary depending on hiring practices. But so what?

This. I wish there official response from Google would have just opened up to their stance and stood ground. Instead of flimsily trying to appease everyone. It would have been more respectable.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#250

Post by edynoid »

jazzyk wrote: post #232
edynoid wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is barely credible given the source is Breitbart.

If you are alleging that they photo-shopped these screenshots - it would be intellectually honest to present a proof, rather than just smear the source, because you don't like it.

For the record, I am not alleging this in particular. For all I know, it might be true. Although given Breitbart's history reading anything on that site does not hold much value.

After all, they have run stories about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring and continuously deny the scientifically evident reality of climate change, for example.

Post reply on HN