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

Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by concordDance »

zarkov99 wrote: post #121
sp332 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the key to a diverse organization is not talking about politics? Seems unlikely.

In this day and age, with the gutter level of discourse used daily by politicians? With a media designed to elicit outrage and a populous that has been led to believe that what divides is far more important than what brings us together? Absolutely, at least until the madness goes away.

The politicians are a product of the media environment imo. The blame lies in the race to the bottom that happened in news once it got competetive.

Until the innoculative meme of having an intuitive understanding of sampling (both of individual incidents and individual aspects of a thing) spreads throughout a decent portion of the populatiob, this awful situation will continue.

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

#732

Post by grumpy8 »

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…

>> It's a bit disappointing to hear, since I personally enjoyed the occasional, honest discussion with smart people

That can still happen, maybe just not on a huge mailing list? :p

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

#733

Post by einhverfr »

wilg wrote: post #730
einhverfr wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Why would you sit out the election instead of voting for the option you know is better?

Because to vote for someone defending PRWORA would be a betrayal of what my family went through. It was at that point vote third party or stay home. I think if I had it to do over again I would vote third party.

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

#734

Post by ausbah »

fromthestart wrote: post #624
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 wit…

People are rabidly dismissive of Project Veritas and another one of their "exposures" because of their attempts to "make evidence" by tricking people into admitting something, cherrypicking what "evidence" they do display, and having a "answer first, evidence second" mindset to their operation.

If you want to show that Google has "bias against conservatives" or whatever, get it from a reputable source instead of the garbage heap that is Project Veritas.

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

#735

Post by anbotero »

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 problem is not the spectrum, I believe, it’s the people. People, for some reason, specially educated ones, cannot handle disagreement. My country had a Red & Blue battle that lasted years, where each party would kill members of the other party. At least now there are more parties and candidates you can align with, but I still think parties are the most stupid thing ever: You will never agree a 100% in everything (and if you do, you’re really weird or probably devoid of criterion), so what’s the point? Deep disagreement comes from passionate people, not from any political spectrum. If you cannot keep your passions somewhat in check, you’re just a time bomb.

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

#736

Post by luckylion »

Aeolun wrote: post #726
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? Not very much? Doesn’t everybody think like this in one way or another? I certainly know what is better for the world than the majority of the US.

> Not very much? Doesn’t everybody think like this in one way or another?

Probably. But lots of people realize they've been wrong before, might be wrong on this occasion, and therefore don't just put their ideas over everybody else's. That's the non-arrogant way to handle that, I guess.

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

#737

Post by elefanten »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #672
mc32 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I love that suggestion and I've borderline fantasized about initiatives like that. I always wonder why debate-focused activities aren't more popular. A few obstacles usually come to mind:

1) Top-down, it's hard to convince people of the value of this who don't already see the value. It's hard to attach a KPI to it, hard to attribute changes. Or at least, from some POVs.

2) It's hard to be sure there will be participation. It's easy to pop off via text when you're procrastinating or got (self-)baited into a conversation. Scheduling discussion time / debate club or whatever feels like a chore.

3) It takes work. Like, to actually have a good debate about something takes time to think, engage, research, reflect and iterate the conversation. Not to mention the willingness. As above, it's easier to engage in junk food discourse than it is to challenge yourself, patiently tune your message over time or advance a dialectic.

But that said, those all feel like workable problems. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if this is one of those cases where nobody has mustered enough will and attention to give it a real shot.

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

#738

Post by einhverfr »

anbotero wrote: post #735
jdm2212 wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 problem is not the spectrum, I believe, it’s the people. People, for some reason, specially educated ones, cannot handle disagreement. My country had a Red & Blue battle that lasted years, where each party would kill members of the other party. At least now there are more parties and candidates you can align with, but I still think parties are the most stupid thing ever: You will never agree a 100% in everything…

And what happens when you have a global company setting itself up as the gatekeeper of information and of ranking information by truth value? What of such disagreements then?

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

#739

Post by justinmeiners »

Koshkin wrote: post #716
justinmeiners wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just not true. Math is neither objective or apolitical. I recommend reading "Descartes Dream."

It is in their mathematical expression that the laws of nature find their most precise form. Math, therefore, is the single most objective kind of knowledge. But, at the same time, that also means that Math cannot be political. (I am not talking about the impact of mathematics on the society, which is what the book is about.)

> the single most objective kind of knowledge

That's likely true.

> that also means that Math cannot be political.

That doesn't follow from the first assumption.

The context here is that someone is claiming math is a counterexample to "everything being political" unfortunately I don't think there is a counterexample.

> which is what the book is about

Many of the chapters are about this. There is a chapter about mathematical rhetoric and how math is used to persuade people.

I would add that mathematical abstractions represent a particular philosophy of viewing the world. For example greek geometry is heavily biased by Platonism.

Just look at the phrase you used: "law of nature". Is nature governed by "laws"? This is certainly a position in an argument about how the world works.

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

#740

Post by scarejunba »

einhverfr wrote: post #688
scarejunba wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Google only changed when they reached two orders of magnitude the size of Goretex, so maybe the answer is that Gore just didn't get big enough.

Two orders of magnitude would put them at a million employees?

Sorry, I was thinking revenue but I don't see how revenue is the right number. One order of magnitude in employees it is.
Post reply on HN