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

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

#761

Post by malandrew » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #433

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…

This. I've been saying for a long time now that 2010-era Google will be in business school textbooks for generations as an example of why we have a taboo against contentious issues in the workplace. It's like the old demotivational poster said: "it might be the case that your purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others".

"A ship on the beach is a lighthouse to the sea" - Dutch proverb

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

#762

Post by ci5er » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #748

ci5er wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your observation that small groups that are already friends having differing points of view does not make them "the other" in your mind, may well be the opposite of (Political) Twitter, which may well be why that ends up being such a dumpster fire. Q: You mention that you were 'appalled'. Did either of you take the time to explore your presumptions behind your reasons for coming to differing conclusions (while realiz…

Good question. We discussed this a bit, and my impression was that he (a) had somewhat negative opinions of muslims in general (although he got along fine with muslim co-workers — again, the phenomenon of knowing somebody protecting against "othering" them) (b) did not hold his political views very strongly, but partially saw politics as entertainment (he also listened to Michael Savage) (c) somewhat felt that when L…

Thanks for the detailed and sincere response.

I apologize upfront for not knowing who Mike Savage is, but it is my understanding that Limbaugh (who I don't listen to, so I could be wrong) is a guy that rudely declares that we should enforce border policies as written into regulations written by Congress?

That may not be true, but if it is, is that wrong-headed?

Edit: I have many loving/giving Muslim friends, and without their help I would not be alive today, but I am somewhat afraid of their "extremists" when I travel to Pakistan, or Qatar. I don't think I'm a hater, but maybe I am?

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

#763

Post by caseysoftware » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

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.

No, it takes extreme arrogance.

People who look at someone else and think "you should just.." are normal. We all do that.

People who look at the world and say "everyone should just.." are the height of arrogance and epitomize the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

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

#764

Post by manigandham » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

methodover wrote: post #577

manigandham wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Corporate structures are created by and serve human civilizations, so I think we've reached an optimal solution given our current societies.

We will need to wait for an evolution in human interaction before any new developments follow in corporate design.

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

#765

Post by squirrelicus » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #531

This is pretty strange to me. I've worked in a bunch of very different places, including Intel Corp. and also defense contractors and US government installations, and people generally stayed away from political discussions unless they were around people they already knew were like-minded. The only place I saw political discussion turn really sour was at Intel when we had a contractor who was extremely religious and c…

This is one of the cons of non-discrimination laws. We can't tell people like that why they got fired.

Something tells me that if I could tell someone I fired them because of their support for antifa or the alt-right, that evil nonsense would bleed itself out of our society in a short time.

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

#766

Post by bradlys » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #501

bradlys wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In reality, political debating at workplace quickly becomes just ugly. I don't think it really has to. I debate politics with people at work enough. I won't get into specifics too much but it's not uncommon to meet someone who has a controversial opinion. You talk with someone, find out why they believe what they believe, and then question a few things (mostly asking why they believe they believe - what lead them t…

Do you discuss politics at work in an online forum where 100 000 persons can pitch in? It is very different from discussing politics in person, things gets way more toxic online since there are more people who can take offence so arguments often escalate.

Sure - I get that. I understand with enough people in a semi-anonymous forum that it could get toxic quickly from just a few bad actors.

However, a lot of the commentary here has been around in-person interactions and not on an online forum.

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

#767

Post by t34543 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

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…

Discussing politics at work is a huge liability. With the recent surge of outrage culture I’m not willing to put my job on the line to prove a point. I engage in discussion, but only online and anonymously.

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

#768

Post by seph-reed » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #239

nailer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the memo was citations of studies of sex differences. People can either agree with the studies or disagree with the research used (it's totally cool with me if you do disagree with the research), but the idea that someone should be punished for talking about research at a company that extols "data driven decision making" as one of it's principles baffles me.

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…

It still seems strange that it's okay to be wrong sometimes, but not about a few very specific things.

Like, it's probably no biggy if people say totally false and indefensible things going the other way. I don't think that's a good sign.

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

#769

Post by weberc2 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

cowmoo728 wrote: post #720

fromthestart wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even if google doesn't have a political bias, there's no way for them to avoid allegations of unfair political treatment. They're in an unenviable position as the arbiter of global popularity and visibility, and there are thousands of mostly far-right groups that are flooding google with garbage. Just by virtue of taking down clearly false, misleading, or violent content, they're already "biased" against one politica…

> there are thousands of mostly far-right groups that are flooding google with garbage

Is there a citation for this? I see lots of far-left garbage on social media generally (by which I mean posts espousing violent revolution, racism, sexism, blank slatism, anarchism, and/or communism). I'm sure there are niches of far right racism, but it mostly seems like a niche problem (and given that the far right is largely a reaction to the far left, it stands to reason that we have an opportunity and obligation to kill both with the same stone).

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

#770

Post by malandrew » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

JaRail wrote: post #759

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…

He offended a broad class of people. Women shouldn't have to pick and choose who they feel comfortable working with around the office. Or worse, be forced to work with that guy. Once he expressed views like that, his fate was sealed. You don't punish the victims.

Let me modify your statement so you can realize how absurd and sexist it is:

> Men shouldn't have to pick and choose who they feel comfortable working with around the office.

It is just as ridiculous if you make it about race:

> [Black|Asian|White|Latino] people shouldn't have to pick and choose who they feel comfortable working with around the office.

This is the fatal flaw of modern day progressives. They make everything about group identity. To make things worse, they then apply those perspectives asymmetrically.

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS." - George Orwell, Animal Farm

Taking offense does not make one a victim.