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

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

#621

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:29 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #505

new2628 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a fine approach, but unfortunately politics creeps into more and more aspects of life, hardly any topic remains apolitical. Like that quote "you may not be interested in war, but ..."

I don't think this is true anymore. Even war doesn't impact my life. We've been at war almost 20 years now and the only difference it's made in my life is airport trips are more annoying. And even if war did impact my life more directly, I don't see how discussing it at work would be helpful in any way.

Living in Europe and being a bit closer to the war zones, I can tell you it has affected my life in a large number of ways. It is a big reason why a lot of my voting in the US is for whoever seems more anti-war (within reason).

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

#622

Post by jachee » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:30 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #543

jachee wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a significant difference between an ideology and an identity. Eliminating the former is not genocide, eliminating the latter is. Why—whenever the question of hate comes up—is HN so quick to rise to the defense of the hateful?

> There's a significant difference between an ideology and an identity. I suspect that many Muslims consider that to be their identity, not just their ideology. > Why—whenever the question of hate comes up—is HN so quick to rise to the defense of the hateful? Because I'm hateful (to at least somebody). And so are you. We don't defend the hateful because the hateful are so wonderful. We don't defend them because we ag…

"I'm a shitty person, and so are you." is a cop-out and frankly insulting.

> I suspect that many Muslims consider that to be their identity, not just their ideology.

I can't believe I have to explain that the difference is between what's a choice and what's not: You can't change your identity. Ideology is arbitrary.

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

#623

Post by lame88 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:31 PM UTC

I'm surprised at the lack of skepticism in the discussion here. The term "politics" - even assuming there is a problem with fiery discussions of what we traditionally view that term to cover - could easily cover dissent over programs like Dragonfly. Most controversy within Google that is publicly known is politically motivated. Don't take this term at face value.

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

#624

Post by fromthestart » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:31 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #553

This is an eye opener. > [Google] employees discussed at length [on internal message boards] whether Trump’s win meant it’s time for a violent revolution. “How do people cope with this?” one employee wrote. “I’ve never been part of a military or war effort before. … I don’t know how useful I’ll be.” It's about time Google tells people to take their political revolution talk somewhere else other than company internal…

People are rabidly dismissive of the project veritas expose, but articles with quotes like this repeteadly show pervasive bias among Google staff which aligns exactly with the accusations and candid management recordings within the video [1]. The video is admittedly obnoxious and overly dramatic, but the candid clips with exec Jen Gennai strongly suggest that these political biases are leaking into technical work with an intended effect on society.

1.https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis...

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

#625

Post by jcranberry » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #369

From the other side - if the world is on fire but a portion of the population thinks everything is just fine and dandy... is it appropriate for everyone to be politely quite until that portion comes to their own realization that the world is on fire? What if that never happens? I feel like the gun control debate is particularly relevant - whenever a shooting happens one side calmly says "This is unfortunate but unavo…

This isn't the other side. The other side would be that because people don't express their political opinions effectively enough, people aren't motivated to enact political change in actually dire situations.

What's at question is the way people treat each other and approach these topics, not their actual positions (half of people think there's a huge problem while the other half don't believe there's a problem)--which is what you're discussing.

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

#626

Post by goatinaboat » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

new2628 wrote: post #376

apple4ever wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great points. There are plenty of areas to discuss politics, and at work doesn't have to be one of them. I've studiously avoided talking to anybody at work about politics, as it usually only serves to anger people if you don't agree. I've had a successful career of doing that.

That sounds like a fine approach, but unfortunately politics creeps into more and more aspects of life, hardly any topic remains apolitical. Like that quote "you may not be interested in war, but ..."

Yes, nowadays attempting to “stay out of” politics simply leads to people accusing you of actively supporting the status quo. You can’t win, once a political culture has taken root around you.

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

#627

Post by ocdtrekkie » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:34 PM UTC

jcranberry wrote: post #616

fortran77 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they never punished the woman who leaked that internal memo. I thought that memo was foolish and short-sighted. I don't agree with it. However, it would have been better solved by a manager first asking him "do you really think it's a good idea to post this at work?" and having him tone it down than trying to publicly shame him and get him fired. Google picked the wrong side on that. They should have made an exam…

I'm sure there may have been some of that. But supposedly (IIRC) he didn't just post it at work, he very diligently attempted to increase it's exposure through word of mouth, mailing lists, and speaking at internal events.

I think Damore's fatal flaw was naivety. He thought his opinions would lead to a better Google and he thought Google wanted to hear arguments that would lead to an improved Google. He clearly lacked the awareness to realize he was not speaking to a receptive audience to the ideas he had. And he wrote something that lacked the... emotional awareness... to understand where the opposing view came from or how his memo would be received.

You can furthermore see that naivety in how quickly he ended up accepting offers and olive branches from alt-right personalities. It seemed like he wasn't aware who he ended up 'siding' with.

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

#628

Post by justinmeiners » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:35 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…

Have you heard this economic joke before?

"Hey there is a $20 bill."

"No it's not. If it was really $20, someone would have picked it up already."

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

#629

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

jachee wrote: post #622

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a significant difference between an ideology and an identity. I suspect that many Muslims consider that to be their identity, not just their ideology. > Why—whenever the question of hate comes up—is HN so quick to rise to the defense of the hateful? Because I'm hateful (to at least somebody). And so are you. We don't defend the hateful because the hateful are so wonderful. We don't defend them because we ag…

"I'm a shitty person, and so are you." is a cop-out and frankly insulting. > I suspect that many Muslims consider that to be their identity, not just their ideology. I can't believe I have to explain that the difference is between what's a choice and what's not: You can't change your identity. Ideology is arbitrary.

> I can't believe I have to explain that the difference is between what's a choice and what's not

You don't, you just need to understand that the idea that identity is always centered on immutable characteristics is wrong.

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

#630

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

ed312 wrote: post #608

fortran77 wrote: post #553

This is an eye opener. > [Google] employees discussed at length [on internal message boards] whether Trump’s win meant it’s time for a violent revolution. “How do people cope with this?” one employee wrote. “I’ve never been part of a military or war effort before. … I don’t know how useful I’ll be.” It's about time Google tells people to take their political revolution talk somewhere else other than company internal…

Also, that's just plain old sedition because you don't like who won the democratic election.

It is protected discussion under the US Constitution since Yates v. United States hamstrung sedition prosecutions over the government going after dissidents, particularly Communists.

Mind you I sat the last election out because I was so thoroughly disgusted with Hillary's anti-immigrant record and Trump's promise to try to be even worse (and while he is trying, I am not sure he is succeeding as bad as it is, and it is very bad). I have no love for either. But it is protected speech.