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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by geofft »

phonon wrote: post #656
jasode wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>100 SJWs [...] contracting with a company of 100 MAGA [...] would be more productive than putting all 200 of them in a single company and imposing the traditional politeness restrictions of a corporate job. So the question in my mind is, why did Google need to grow? I had trouble parsing what you wrote but I think the question you're asking (growth with employees vs growth by contractors?) is answered by Coase's "Th…

No, he's saying diversity is disruptive/adds friction . See https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128026...

I'm specifically saying that political diversity (sometimes inaccurately called "diversity of thought") is disruptive. If one side thinks the other side doesn't believe they should exist as people—and even more so if they correctly believe so—how do you get the psychological safety to tell each other hard truths about their work?

(As for demographic diversity, the SJW population and to a lesser the MAGA population have that, empirically it doesn't inherently cause strife.)

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

#812

Post by malandrew »

wbronitsky wrote: post #803
malandrew wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ever…

I don't think your statements are as self evident as you think they are. You are personally attacking the poster above you, and then just spinning words around to make a point you agree with. We understand you agree with yourself; would you care to help us try and agree with you? Personally, I agree with your statements. I do not see the issue that you see with wanting all people to be comfortable in their workplace.…

If that's the case, then it follows that:

> You are personally attacking James Damore, and then just spinning words around to make a point you agree with.

Specifically, this following statement is a gross misrepresentation of the argument he was making, which really was only clear with the bell curve diagrams that most news media companies purposefully omitted:

> he believes that women are genetically inferior at the job he does.

Furthermore, I disagree with the part about either argument being personal. We both attacked the argument, not the person. There was no ad hominem in either my original statement nor your retort.

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

#813

Post by joshuamorton »

malvosenior wrote: post #809
justforyou wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search is an intensely political issue, we're just used to ignoring that particular aspect.

Search is entirely a technical problem. There are literally no politics involved.

So you would agree that since search is entirely technical, then search results by definition cannot present political bias?

Personally I disagree with that claim, but if you feel that search is a wholly technical problem, I'd expect you to agree.

And that doesn't even deal with the obviously political: laws like the right to be forgotten, or other forms of censorship like removals of content due to copyright. How to engage with those is inherently political.

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

#814

Post by bendbro »

memmcgee wrote: post #783
bendbro wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen some of their videos. They seem fairly damning, and rebuttals have always been fairly weak. For example, a google exec was captured on video saying: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”. In what context does that statement not amount to silencing conservative perspective on their platform? I completely agree it is their right to do so, and probably benefits the nati…

Oftentimes the people they say are "executives" are just rank and file employees. I have a friend who is not an executive who got tricked into meeting with a Project Veritas scumbag. Thankfully they realized something was up and left the meeting.

That's a good point. In general I'd say outing a rank-and-file employee is bad form. There are exceptions of course, like if the employee's revealed behavior is at par with Edward Snowden. The only example I have is the Gennai one, which is what I'm referring to above. I'd love more examples of Project Veritas behaving badly

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

#816

Post by fromthestart »

ausbah wrote: post #734
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…

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…

Where do you go for official sources when the entire modern media establishment has an undeniable (and rather open) liberal bias?

Ignoring bias, do you believe that every given situation that some group may identify as a problem is guaranteed to have a reputable source reporting on it?

I'd love to find a more reputable source, but one is not currently available, and I'm not in a position to create one. That does not imply that the problem being reported on is illegitimate. You should be able to assess the contents of the video with PV's bias in mind - and most of the content really does stand on its own, especially in the context of relevant quotes from employees in OPs article.

There was also a massive trove[1] of internal Google documents dumped on PV related to, among other things, AI development and arguably politically motivated guidance by internal definitions of "fairness", designed to shape search results. Should these documents also be ignored because they're only being hosted by Project Veritas? You can see them yourself...

Ironically, this is the danger of trusting only select biased organizations with curating the flow of information - as you suggest, to most people, if a "reputable" source hasn't reported about it, it doesn't exist. How many years has 4chan been screaming about epstein, as another example, without major media investigation?

The bottom line is that no entity that acts as the front page to the internet should be curating information flow without a massive, blinking disclaimer.

1.https://www.projectveritas.com/google-document-dump/

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

#817

Post by fromthestart »

memmcgee wrote: post #783
bendbro wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen some of their videos. They seem fairly damning, and rebuttals have always been fairly weak. For example, a google exec was captured on video saying: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”. In what context does that statement not amount to silencing conservative perspective on their platform? I completely agree it is their right to do so, and probably benefits the nati…

Oftentimes the people they say are "executives" are just rank and file employees. I have a friend who is not an executive who got tricked into meeting with a Project Veritas scumbag. Thankfully they realized something was up and left the meeting.

The hidden camera captured an interview with Jen Gennai, Head of Responsible Innovation, Global Affairs at Google. You could at least watch the video and find out for yourself.

I think the real problem here is that people are aware of Google's bias and OK with it, but unwilling to admit as much.

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

#818

Post by wilg »

einhverfr wrote: post #733
wilg wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it a betrayal of anything or anyone to vote for the better of two viable options (according to your own opinion)?

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

#819

Post by losvedir »

new2628 wrote: post #436
stcredzero wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a fine approach, but unfortunately politics creeps into more and more aspects of life. Do a historical survey of people who tried to suffuse politics completely through the lives of their followers. For completeness, look also at the actions of religions in the same way. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Politics, movements of any kind which demand the entirety of the lives of their…

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".

> Now try discussing any of these in depth "without politics".

The whole point is you don't have to discuss any of those in depth.

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

#820

Post by astura »

einhverfr wrote: post #674
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 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-s…

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

Not surprising at all, Romney and Obama were so similar I didn't bother voting in the 2012 election.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Post reply on HN