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

Google's Civil War

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 158 posts

Re: Google's Civil War

#11

Post by dralley »

fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

So what you're saying is, employees shouldn't complain about (censorship, bosses tolerating sexual harassment, etc.), they should either put up with it or leave quietly (possibly to their own financial detriment)?

I can't say I agree with you. What you're suggesting is basically the Wall Street model where bad and unethical institutional behavior gets a suboptimal amount of pushback.

Re: Google's Civil War

#12

Post by wffurr »

fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

Well, for one, retaliation against labor organizing is illegal under federal law.

For another, Google is in fierce competition with the rest of the tech companies for talent.

Re: Google's Civil War

#13

Post by rgoulter »

The Google organizers have taken to calling themselves the “entitled vocal majority,” after one employee publicly referred to them as the “entitled vocal minority.”

I feel like this is a small example of where my views of these employees disagrees with the author's. (I'm fine with employees having strong opinions on ethical issues, but this kindof puff quote doesn't lend them respect).

I dunno if the author thinks they're being impartial. Can't complain if they know (and the reader knows) where their preference lies.

Re: Google's Civil War

#14

Post by pjc50 »

fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

The whole point of somewhere like Google is that they don't want people who will do what they're told, because such people are only capable of doing what they're told. You can't order someone to innovate unless they have no other choice.

Silicon Valley has spent years setting itself up as an inheritor of the counterculture, a place where it's possible to "think different". Employees are given a share of the business (via a complicated tax shelter of options). Startups want "contributors", people who buy into the idea that they're engaged in a positive-sum contribution to the world rather than just bringing home a paycheck. They provide all sorts of office features to encourage people to "bring their whole self to work".

(I could go on, but I expect this thread to be buried)

Edit: exhibit A, hollywood social justice warrior proudly being a nuisance, disrupting law abiding citizens with a hammer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I ; the "1984" Macintosh commercial and its successor "Think Different" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFEarBzelBs are as close to an official statement of SV founding ideology as you're going to get)

Re: Google's Civil War

#15

Post by burtonator »

fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

The BEST thing someone can do when you're they're friend is tell you when you're doing something wrong so you can correct your behavior.

A real friend speaks out ...

Re: Google's Civil War

#16

Post by herohamp »

dralley wrote: post #11
fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

So what you're saying is, employees shouldn't complain about (censorship, bosses tolerating sexual harassment, etc.), they should either put up with it or leave quietly (possibly to their own financial detriment)? I can't say I agree with you. What you're suggesting is basically the Wall Street model where bad and unethical institutional behavior gets a suboptimal amount of pushback.

They should but they then also face the consequences

Re: Google's Civil War

#17

Post by idlewords »

I'd be curious to hear rank-and-file Googlers' views on how this dynamic is playing out within the company. It's in both journalists' and organizers' interests to play it up, so the reality can be hard to discern.

Re: Google's Civil War

#18

Post by deogeo »

> Things got even uglier when Damore sympathizers leaked comments made on the message boards by Fong-Jones, a trans woman, and other Google diversity advocates to right-wing news sites. [this fortune.com article]

This got me curious, so I tried searching for these leaked comments, while avoiding far-right news sites. This is what I found:

> Diversity advocates at Google – including the Mountain View tech giant's highest-ranking inclusion officer – are being targeted by a small group of colleagues in an internal culture war, according to a new report. [...] screenshots from Google internal discussion boards have been leaked and posted on far-right websites including Breitbart and the blog Vox Popoli, which espouses white supremacy. [1]

> 15 current Google employees accuse coworkers of inciting outsiders to harass rank-and-file employees who are minority advocates, including queer and transgender employees. Since August, screenshots from Google’s internal discussion forums, including personal information, have been displayed on sites including Breitbart and Vox Popoli, a blog run by alt-right author Theodore Beale, who goes by the name Vox Day. [2]

> Their personal information and comments expressed in internal company forums have been leaked to the public and published on far-right websites, leading to mistreatment by online vigilantes. [..] "We need to see concrete and meaningful action," Fong-Jones said. [..] Chuck Johnson, who was kicked off Twitter in 2015 after tweeting about wanting to "take out" civil rights activist DeRay McKesson [3]

> Their tactics allegedly include “weaponiz[ing] human resources” by goading diverse members of Google’s team into making inflammatory statements, and reporting those statements as violations of the company’s rules around civility. [..] Pro-diversity employees say that their messages on internal Google forums have also been photographed and shared outside the company, leading to their publication on far-right platforms [4]

A lot of condemnation of the leaks, but I was shocked to find no trace of the leaked comments themselves - though the people whose comments were leaked are interviewed and given the chance to present their side. The contrast is greatest in [3], where the only comment quoted is the two-word "take out" of the presumably far-right Chuck Johnson.

So we have, broadly speaking, two sides making controversial comments. The comments of one side aren't published (except by far-right news sites), only their explanations given to the media. The other side does have their incriminating comments published (or parts of them), but doesn't get much of a chance to defend or explain themselves after that.

I'm just glad this one-sided reporting is on the side of truth and the good guys.

[1] https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2018/01/30/googles...

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/the-dirty-war-over-diversity-ins...

[3] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/01/26/google-diversi...

[4] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/google-has-become-gr...

Re: Google's Civil War

#19

Post by evrydayhustling »

fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

To get an incredibly valuable lead in hiring, Google has led the market on entitlements: great pay, perks, lifestyle, transparency, and a promise of ethical and participatory governance. It might be fair to say that some of these employees have unrealistic expectations about their employer, but you can't say Google didn't ask for it.

I personally agree it's kind of silly to expect your work to be a Utopia by your specific definition. On the other hand, if Google does learn to reconcile its business and competing employee cultures, they will have done something amazing that probably makes them a stronger institution.

Re: Google's Civil War

#20

Post by neffy »

pjc50 wrote: post #14
fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

The whole point of somewhere like Google is that they don't want people who will do what they're told, because such people are only capable of doing what they're told. You can't order someone to innovate unless they have no other choice. Silicon Valley has spent years setting itself up as an inheritor of the counterculture, a place where it's possible to "think different". Employees are given a share of the business…

I really think that's just darkly entertaining marketing. Silicon valley in reality is a ruthlessly corporate business world, where known to be worthless options are traded for people's lives and labour. (Look up "founder's shares") Startups require cheap labour, if their investors are going to make out like bandits - that's what's really going on.

Google in particular, if they were looking for people capable of thinking outside the box, would not selecting very specifically from the box of people that are prepared to jump through the hoops of their ridiculous programming interviews. In fact, by this point in their history, they could just datamine the list of people who have repeatedly told their recruiters to take a running jump, and start sampling from there.

Post reply on HN