Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#571

Post by DangitBobby » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

jshowa3 wrote: post #498

malvosenior wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The discourse around the James Damore memo, as divisive as it was, felt like it still led to a broader understanding of the negative perspectives women in tech had to deal with constantly. Damore was fired for his contributions to this "conversation". Hardly just. > particularly the ones who felt it was worth staying and using their influence internally to push Google toward creating a more just world. How about ju…

Damore was fired for his contributions to this conversation". Hardly just.* According to what you said in this post, It was completely just as Damore basically wrote a dissertation about things that were completely unrelated to any work done for any Google product. All that work would've been tantamount to a complete waste of company time and could be grounds for a firing. Google users don't care at all about the pol…

But that isn't one off Google's workplace rules, and evaluation of whether or not someone is being "just" should be partially based on how well they apply their own rules.

If I say "this thing is permitted" and then punish someone for doing that thing, it should be unjust in your eyes whether or not you would have said "this thing is permitted."

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#572

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

sarbaz wrote: post #538

LordFast wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…

Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice? Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice? I don't see how you can call it "arrogant" for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don't have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power…

I think the problem is that the US has developed for various reasons (including a lack of discussing politics) a series of echo chambers and people don't connect politically beyond their echo chambers. In urban California, among software developers, you are likely to have one or two political views represented at most, and these represent a small racial and class-based cross-section of urban California. The first of course is the Neoliberal views of the Rainbow Capitalism camp that brought us Hillary Clinton's candidacy. If there is a second view it is the Business Liberalism view of the elite GOP members such as the Koch brothers.

You aren't going to get the political concerns of rust-belt America, or the political concerns of black families down in Watts recognized, nor will you get the communitarianism of rural America in there either.

And so that sense of justice gets warped, even regarding national issues of the US today.

What happens when these things go world wide? Someone's sense of justice gets offended by economic orders where procreative/childrearing families hold businesses which are inherited and passed on to kids, and where there are solid gender roles associated (my kids' second culture for example)? I guess we better do what we can to make the world safe for American Capitalism to come in and liberate people from family expectations. But that means opening up such cultures to economic exploitation by foreign business and that harm is waved away as if it doesn't matter.

The arrogance does matter, because the arrogance can easily lead to outright economic colonialism ("for their own good" as much now as a century ago). The way to hold it in check is for other viewpoints to actually be entertained and discussed.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#573

Post by itronitron » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #355

stcredzero wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. It sounds like the work culture at Google has rediscovered the emergent factors which gave rise to the traditional cultural strictures against talking about money, politics, and religion. Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguab…

I remember the Founder's Letter included with Google's IPO in 2004 - "Google is not a traditional company. We do not intend to become one." It looks like they became one. The other interesting takeaway for me is how long-term equilibria can leave holes that may be exploited by short-term-focused actors . When Google was young, it's say-anything culture was a big competitive advantage: it let them hire people who were…

while I agree with most of your points, being more open about emotions is definitely not a prerequisite for creativity.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#574

Post by aylmao » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

doitLP wrote: post #40

arcticbull wrote: post #20

I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. That's kinda natural once you reach a certain size and your colleagues may as well be randos on the street. To be fair, that's a learning most businesses stumbled upon decades ago, it's the new generation of "re-invent management" companies that are speedrunning HR policy.

I think they overestimated just how willing certain people are to not do their jobs and sit around arguing while being paid.

I recently had a conversation with someone who works at Google, and she mentioned how in her opinion Google hires a lot of smart people but has a good chunk of them doing very lame work.

So perhaps that's not too far fetched. I've had jobs that didn't keep me interested or seemed menial, and I will admit to holding a lot of online threads during those work hours. Nowadays, when I'm at work I'm often too busy and interested in what I'm doing to think about other things that are happening.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#575

Post by MFLoon » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

jshowa3 wrote: post #487

oppositelock wrote: post #187

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

In most states, political discussion in the work place is considered illegal. California has some odd laws though that protect people from this.

I think you're confused. It's definitely not illegal in any state to have informal political discussions with coworkers. Maybe what you're referring to is that it's illegal for employers to tell employees to vote a certain a way or retaliate against them for holding certain political views.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#576

Post by ci5er » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

tidepod12 wrote: post #490

new2628 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I surely enjoy wild associations as much as the next guy, but I meant more pedestrian topics such as: - are you eating meat or are you vegetarian? - do you take a car to work or ride a bike or take public transportation? - do you drink tap water or bottled water? - do you send your kids to private or public school? Now try discussing any of these in depth "without politics".

I'm trying to say this as politely as possible, but... are you serious? If you seriously cannot have conversations at this level without them turning into political discussions, you really need to reflect on your conversational habits. It is absolutely not normal or healthy if you can't talk about drinking water without it turning political. My SO is a vegetarian. It comes up a lot , both with my friends (who are all…

It's usually the vegetarian (vegan) that starts it, so if it doesn't turn into an issue, your SO has the non-escalation skills, not all of your meat-eating normies.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#577

Post by methodover » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #522

nostrademons wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the Founder's Letter included with Google's IPO in 2004 - "Google is not a traditional company. We do not intend to become one." It looks like they became one. The other interesting takeaway for me is how long-term equilibria can leave holes that may be exploited by short-term-focused actors . When Google was young, it's say-anything culture was a big competitive advantage: it let them hire people who were…

Every company becomes a "traditional" company because only traditional companies have survived. If alternative structures worked well then we would've seen them by now. Also I'm willing to be that a startup's lack of bureaucracy and momentum lets it experiment and move faster rather than just a carefree internal attitude. I've been in midsize companies on both sides of the free-culture spectrum and have never noticed…

> If alternative structures worked well then we would've seen them by now

Well let’s not go this far. Human civilization has existed for a tiny portion of time, modern civilization even less so. There’s PLENTY of time for better structures to be discovered.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#578

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

lmpostor wrote: post #529

LordFast wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…

> How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? That of a regular human being with rationalized opinions through the lens available to them? For some reason only because Google has a lot of power to control the dialogue you ask them to bury their head in the sand? Or are we going to pretend that there hasn't been an arms race of s…

All opinions can be rationalized through a particular lens can they not?

Are you asking Google to be a voice of reason in the debate over global labor markets and liberalization of SE Asian economies for example?

Doesn't that give you a wolf-and-lamb problem, to reference Aesop?

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#579

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:57 PM UTC

brodouevencode wrote: post #496

mieseratte wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What seems to be happening a lot lately is that politics are spilling over into large, global mailing lists Interestingly there are people in this very thread claiming "everything is politics."

Hilariously too, they're agreeing with Rush Limbaugh: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/05/everything_is_...

No they're agreeing with early 20th century communist theorists like Marx. The left has always biased toward the idea that social interaction is politics. And "politics" is just the micro social politics playing out on a grander scale. It's just easier to ignore those things when you're in (relative) power, since, as a straight person, you aren't directly affected by the ability of gay people to marry, or whatever.

Limbaugh was just agreeing with the communists. Oops?

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#580

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #508

I wonder if this has anything to do with the recently leaked posts that shows google staff used the google search front end to target specific demographics they expected to vote for a particular candidate and then were shocked and upset when a substantial minority portion of those populations voted for different candidates? If discussions are leading to credible allegations that a company was promoting candidates usi…

Could you link to the evidence of that, because I think you'll find that upon even a cursory investigation, it doesn't exist.