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

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

#671

Post by pat12 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #346

gwbas1c wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The memo made some very poignant points, but then the author expressed some strange opinions that I would never attempt to defend. (Even worse, there was no reason to put some of these opinions in the memo.) But what's more scary is Google's official response to the diversity memo. (For context, Google instituted certain hiring policies to increase diversity, which the "diversity memo" questioned.) If you have the ti…

I read the memo before reading the media coverage. I was very surprised at how controversial it was. It's claims were pretty modest: it did not claim that women were any less capable than men at technology, and it repeatedly stated that innate differences likely do not account for all of the disparity between men and women in tech. All it argued was that just because a disparity exists we should not assume that it is…

Keep in mind it has becoming controversial to say that the world #1 women tennis player, Serena Williams, would be rank #700 in the men's circuit:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/ct-john-mcenr...

This is the world we live in.

EDIT: added link

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

#672

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:10 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #554

ChuckMcM wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My tenure overlapped ('06 - '10) and the discussions were lively. There were (and probably still are) interesting meta-terms like 'centathread' which was a topic that had received >= 100 replies (the gmail threading limit at the time). That said, the change in policy (what is cited at least) reads a bit like "Let's create air cover for management actions to separate trouble makers from the company." Where trouble mak…

But what is the alternative? The problem is diametric opinions end with two people (no company involved). What is the company to do to get people with opposing views to “get along”? Let’s put up Tibet. Some people will have strong opinions on one side and another set will have strong opinions on the other side. (Most people will be indifferent). How can the company manage that tension among people who work for them w…

Good example :-)

The 'hard' solution is to teach people to communicate about topics on which they disagree. An easier solution would be to have employee moderators. A combination of providing communication classes and moderators with a dose of involuntary enrollment might be a middle ground.

For a long time Google generated hundreds of thousands of dollars per employee in revenue which they have been banking for the most part, and occasionally spending on acquisitions. An alternative would be an employee communications support network that promoted good communication skills and facilitated improvements in employee discourse on all topics. Google could have funded an entire research institute and a few thousand employee 'coaches' without meaningfully digging into their cash pile. That would have been "non-traditional."

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

#673

Post by couchand » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:11 PM UTC

corey_moncure wrote: post #563

oppositelock wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I enjoy discussing politics, at work too, however, you have to do it in a respectful way. Politics is like religion, you will never directly convince anyone of anything, but if you can expose them to new ideas, and watch them either incorporate or challenge these ideas, it's a really rewarding discussion. You also have to limit these discussions to willing participants. In my time at Google, there were tons of people…

>you will never directly convince anyone of anything Policy is the surface level of a deep tree of rational beliefs. No one will ever be convinced of policy because each sees their favored policy as rational due to the underpinning structure of beliefs. Discussions that don't begin with the core beliefs are bound to lead nowhere, you're right.

You're right in that a lot of policy debate these days is folks talking past each other, ignoring their irreconcilable fundamental assumptions. But a discussion artifically limited to discussing those in the abstract will go nowhere. Most people best converse productively at the level of a series of examples.

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

#674

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

jdm2212 wrote: post #648

einhverfr wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its worth noting my colleagues and I have very different political views when we talk over lunch but I find it very insightful to see different views and we are all on good terms over it all. And I think we do think about eachother's views and we do try to build common ground, so frankly I find it healthy.

The American political spectrum is way bigger than the political spectrum in most European countries. There's a lot more potential for deep disagreement in the US when people talk politics.

>The American political spectrum is way bigger than the political spectrum in most European countries. There's a lot more potential for deep disagreement in the US when people talk politics.

Ummmm....

The entire American political spectrum fits in the center-right of most European countries' political spectrums.

When was the last time you saw a political discussion between a Socialist, a Social Democrat, and an old-school Christian Democrat?

Here's how I describe American politics to Europeans:

In the US we have two political parties. We have the Democrats which you know as the Liberal party.

And then we have the Republicans which you know as the Liberal party.

Yes, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama would be in the same party in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, etc.

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

#675

Post by malandrew » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:13 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…

I'm curious if you live in San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, Portland or any "woke" city. The point you're replying to is palpable as someone that has lived in two of these places, but I agree that it would sound absurd based on my experience living in places that aren't highly woke.

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

#676

Post by nailer » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #657

gwbas1c wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, now go re-read Google's official response. Note that they did not respond to "we should not assume that it is evidence of discrimination, and that policies designed to engineer an outcome closer to 50/50 are likely creating discrimination"

Google fired Damore for his perpetuating of gender stereotypes. He even confirmed it with the media.

Well yes that's the point: if data perpetuates sex stereotypes then is it immoral to discuss the data?

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

#677

Post by tareqak » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:16 PM UTC

If Google did get split up, maybe the baby Googles could keep their open culture?

Update: I realize that this comment appears sarcastic and ill-meaning, but the top ranked post on HN is about " Deconstructing Google’s excuses on tracking protection" as of this moment (Friday, August 23, 2019 2:25 PM PDT) [0]. If we take the following together:

1. the open culture at Google as a known good quantity for some of the people who like to work there and keep working there

2. each of the products and services that Google offers today as respective known good quantities

3. The aggregate of Google's influence with respect to how the products and services in 2. sometimes has negative impacts on the marketplace.

4. The size of Google causes the open culture in 1. to start being a hindrance to Google itself.

Then it seems obvious to me that the size and breadth of Google is the problem. I genuinely mean all of this in good-faith. If Google stayed small, then maybe services like Google Reader could still be around because the gap between cost and benefit would not have been as wide.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779964

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

#678

Post by cat199 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:16 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…

or, it was never not a traditional company, and this was wishful magical thinking.

Pretty sure from day 1, they produced something and attempted to sell it for gains. Pretty traditional to me. Kind of the only way to do business.

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

#679

Post by big_chungus » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

TheGRS wrote: post #309

big_chungus wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I expect them to block most things, but still allow things I care about but which the "other side" doesn't regard as serious issues." Fixed that for you. No one is the sole arbiter of what is "important", so I've usually found just not discussing to be the best solution at work.

Telling people to stop talking about politics because one don't feel like the discussion is important or productive can be viewed as its own form of covert political discourse. "The status quo is fine, I'm doing fine, discussion to the contrary hurts my worldview".

Exactly. Every one regards his issues as too important to be merely political. My point is many people don't agree with your interpretation of what ought to be allowed/banned, and you've presented no reason why those issues in particular ought to be discussed. Again, my best solution is to just avoid talking politics at work.

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

#680

Post by gm678 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #528

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…

Some people can handle civil discussion with people of differing values, and some people can't. I wonder what the difference is, I mean beyond just painting someone who can't as a jerk. I think it has to do with learned skills of emotional self-regulation... someone with those skills is better able to hold their perspective while allowing that of another. But how does one learn that? It might have to do with safety.…

While I absolutely agree that there are people of all political beliefs who have major problems with remaining civil, I think we sometimes have an unfair standard. If someone is dealing with people who just want to spread hate and have no interest in having an open-minded discussion or ever changing their views, and that person then betrays even a hint of frustration, they are often immediately slammed for becoming impolite and uncivil. (Note: I'm not saying there's no line here, just that I believe the line is sometimes drawn in the wrong place).

However, the person being toxic is often not criticized at all because they were spreading their hateful views "politely," if such a thing is possible. So while I believe there is nothing to be gained from getting angry in a political discussion, I do think we should give people a bit of a break if they understandably become frustrated when dealing with actual white nationalists/neo-Nazis/incels saying rape should be legal/etc.