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

Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

breitbart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 486 posts

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#71

Post by ctlby »

skybrian wrote: post #64
rsj_hn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not surprising at all. Every company has a preferred candidate in pretty much every election, at least the CEO and top leadership certainly does. What is surprising is turning an all hands into a kind of mass grieving funeration for all of their 90K employees, replete with publicly weeping executives and the entire executive leadership being vocally outraged. Turning an all hands into a political event like…

To add some context: remember that Google has employees who felt personally threatened by election results (immigrants and transgender employees). Nobody knew what Trump would do. The worst fears turned out to be overblown, but it was hard to make the case for not worrying at the time. Telling people they had nothing to worry about would have simply been offensive. There are few election results that employees would…

It was trivial to make the case, and that people didn’t see this represents a massive epistomological failure. Perhaps it would have been offensive, but adults should not be indulged when they engage in hysteria.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#72

Post by adamrezich »

jessaustin wrote: post #28

Wow they get lots of comments over at Breitbart. 11k on TFA, 35k on a soundbite from Cher, 22k for some ridiculous complaint about Serena (hmmm, is this some sort of theme?), 3500 on some guy having a heart attack. Is this normal for partisan news sites? They need to figure out some way of monetizing those comments.

A lot of mainstream news source sites have heavily-policed comments or none at all. I'm sure there's plenty of spam comments, but it's almost like people with views that become disallowed in popular online platforms don't in fact change their views or stop existing as many seem to think, and instead find other outlets for their views. I hardly see any "right-wing" views from non-politicians in my Twitter follows, yet I know that millions of such people exist in the US alone.

Again, there's likely some spam in there, but to handwave such a quantity of comments away as "bots" would be to ignore reality.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#73

Post by rsj_hn »

skybrian wrote: post #64
rsj_hn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not surprising at all. Every company has a preferred candidate in pretty much every election, at least the CEO and top leadership certainly does. What is surprising is turning an all hands into a kind of mass grieving funeration for all of their 90K employees, replete with publicly weeping executives and the entire executive leadership being vocally outraged. Turning an all hands into a political event like…

To add some context: remember that Google has employees who felt personally threatened by election results (immigrants and transgender employees). Nobody knew what Trump would do. The worst fears turned out to be overblown, but it was hard to make the case for not worrying at the time. Telling people they had nothing to worry about would have simply been offensive. There are few election results that employees would…

There are people personally threatened in every presidential election, and most of those fears are overblown pretty much all the time. Lots of extremist views in this country and lots of people feeling threatened about pretty much everything.

Should google have held the same weeping festival in case Hillary won, and someone was personally threatened that she would start a new war in Syria or lead to war in Russia? Which could lead to a nuclear war? Of course not. That would be as ridiculous as what happened now. You don't cater to those kinds of views in the workplace.

The correct response is not to hold a company meeting about how threatened anyone feels in an election, but to talk about the new products being rolled out and what you expect from your employees in their business life. And there are lots of blogs and opportunities for Google employees to express their political views outside the company. No public weeping of executives is required.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#74

Post by skybrian »

ctlby wrote: post #71
skybrian wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add some context: remember that Google has employees who felt personally threatened by election results (immigrants and transgender employees). Nobody knew what Trump would do. The worst fears turned out to be overblown, but it was hard to make the case for not worrying at the time. Telling people they had nothing to worry about would have simply been offensive. There are few election results that employees would…

It was trivial to make the case, and that people didn’t see this represents a massive epistomological failure. Perhaps it would have been offensive, but adults should not be indulged when they engage in hysteria.

Eh. Maybe you could have used platitudes like "America has survived worse" and "most people in government will follow the law, even if he doesn't." But those aren't particularly comforting.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#75

Post by adamrezich »

gizmo686 wrote: post #43
JohnBooty wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting to improve their news algorithm to favor more trustworthy sources is not a violation of free speech. "Free speech" guarantees you the right to say what you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others' freedoms (i.e., making death threats or yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater) "Free speech" does not guarantee you a platform for your protected free speech. I have the right to claim blatantly false…

The first amendment does not prevent Google (or any other company) from restricting speech. That is a very low bar. The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of government…

>The distinction between government and private groups is not a clean as you might think. At a large enough scale, private groups can start to take on a role in society that resembles that of a government, should we not then expect them to be held to a standard that resembles that we expect of governments?

I hope this view becomes more mainstream soon. Regardless of outcome, it's something that people need to consciously think about.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#76

Post by rsj_hn »

skybrian wrote: post #74
ctlby wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was trivial to make the case, and that people didn’t see this represents a massive epistomological failure. Perhaps it would have been offensive, but adults should not be indulged when they engage in hysteria.

Eh. Maybe you could have used platitudes like "America has survived worse" and "most people in government will follow the law, even if he doesn't." But those aren't particularly comforting.

I was around when Bush won re-election. After he lied us into war. I couldn't believe it. I was absolutely stunned, depressed, and horrified that something like that could happen.

Yet not once did I expect my employer to "comfort" me. I mean, my God, that's not the job of an employer. Friends comfort you. Your employer is not your friend.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#77

Post by simula67 »

fallingfrog wrote: post #60

Wait, you mean there's bias in our media? All joking aside- I remember watching ed Snowden go from being a "whistleblower" to a "leaker" in the space of 8 hours. I watched Alexandria ocasio Cortez go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours. I remember how all the media were creaming themselves with excitement over the wmd's they were going to find in Iraq.…

> Alexandria ocasio Cortes go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours

Are you kidding ? She said US military was given $700 billion increase that they didn't ask for. She said that US unemployment is low becuase everyone has two jobs. She said ICE has to detain 34,000 people every night by law. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-co...

This 'if you criticise Democrat female politicians you must be sexist' line is incredibly annoying

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#78

Post by zawerf »

dang wrote: post #17
ihatethem wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how private citizens discussing their political views is "substantive", there is nothing remotely controversial in that footage, this is just fodder for partisans.

You've repeatedly created accounts with a propaganda agenda for Google. You've been doing it for years. We've banned you before, and I've banned this account. Doing this is abusive regardless of what company you're promoting or what your motive is. Would you please stop? HN is for curious humans to exchange thoughts in community. Few things undermine curiosity or community more. We frequently ask users not to accuse…

Off-topic:

You're implying that you have an admin UI that lets you see all our other logins? (matched on IP or cookies I guess?) Or did you do a one-off query just for that guy?

Since YC applications are attached to HN accounts, do you guys check comments made on alt accounts too?

Tracking is useful for moderating but I want to confirm that I can treat my throwaways as throwaways.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#79

Post by skybrian »

rsj_hn wrote: post #73
skybrian wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add some context: remember that Google has employees who felt personally threatened by election results (immigrants and transgender employees). Nobody knew what Trump would do. The worst fears turned out to be overblown, but it was hard to make the case for not worrying at the time. Telling people they had nothing to worry about would have simply been offensive. There are few election results that employees would…

There are people personally threatened in every presidential election, and most of those fears are overblown pretty much all the time. Lots of extremist views in this country and lots of people feeling threatened about pretty much everything. Should google have held the same weeping festival in case Hillary won, and someone was personally threatened that she would start a new war in Syria or lead to war in Russia? Wh…

Oh come on, you're doing a terrible job of understanding how your political opponents think.
Post reply on HN