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

On Resigning from Google

alphabetworkers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 295 posts

Re: On Resigning from Google

#131

Post by gnicholas »

thomasmeeks wrote: post #119
gnicholas wrote: post #22

> Attacks like this were an attack on people’s jobs and physical security: if you can strip a reform-oriented pastor of their PCUSA ordination, you also strip them of their employment and their health insurance If I'm understanding correctly, the argument with regard to "physical security" is that if you try to get someone fired, which would result in them losing their employer-provided health insurance, that they wo…

I actually feel this way about attacks on employment in general, so I'll try to give some quick context about the belief. I grew up in a lower-middle-class household. We declared bankruptcy once when I was young, and I was told to prepare to have "strangers come and take away furniture" (which, thankfully, never materialized). I never went hungry, but we did live paycheck-to-paycheck and frequently relied on the char…

Thanks for sharing. I can understand how losing a job can cause this stress, especially for people who do not have much savings.

However, if physical security is a concern that is intrinsic to job loss, then I'm not sure what the point is of saying that you're threatening "my job and my physical security", since the latter is solely a subset of the former. I think most people would interpret that statement to mean that you threatened their job and also threatened something else related to their physical security.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#132

Post by ditonal »

neplus wrote: post #74

This reads like a moral screed. That's fine. They're entitled to their own views, to voice those views internally, and if they aren't adopted to leave the company and write a polemic. Ultimately, two thirds of their complaints involve taking a position counter to the stated national interest of the United States. Sure, maybe they believe that national interest is wrong, morally objectionable, or whatever, but the inf…

First of all Google affects a lot more than just the USA and while HQed in the USA is in many ways an international company.

Secondly, even if you take a US centric view of things, just because someone at the Pentagon claims something is the US best interests doesn't mean it is. People say, "oh we need these dangerous AI based weapons or other countries will win an arms race". Arms races benefit military contractors but few other people. The 20th century taught us lessons about arms races and we should learn from them. The USA does not build nuclear weapons anymore, instead it invests heavily in diplomacy to prevent other countries from building nuclear weapons. For some reason, few people seem to consider that we could take the same approach to AI weaponry.

People simply underestimate the dangers of AI weaponry. Suppose you are an evil dictator who wants to oppress and enslave a group of people, and you can choose between a nuclear bomb, or a drone that has enough intelligence to hunt down journalists, political opponents, and any other dissidents that dare defy you. Which weapon would this hypothetical tyrant pick?

Yes, wealthy, powerful people at the top ranks of politics and business in this country, who stand to gain more wealth and power via the development of these weapons, support Google developing them. However, your position that since they're the authority figures, anybody who questions them is not an "adult", strikes me as extremely asinine and highly dangerous.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#133

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

aaomidi wrote: post #120
judge2020 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do, but doing so in the name of LGBTQ+ and not simply as a fellow human/coworker is hurting the label, as @maps said.

Learn about intersectionality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

You're linking literally pseudoscientific misinformation. Do better!

Re: On Resigning from Google

#134

Post by solipsism »

aaomidi wrote: post #61
JimboOmega wrote: post #21

The post talks about Google supposedly persecuting LGBTQ employees for speaking up. But the linked articles only talk about them (possibly) getting retaliated against for protesting other issues, like border security or sexual harassment. As an LGBT person (who does her fair share of activism), I'm not clear what the LGBTQ angle is here other than if the people involved happened to be LGBTQ. It seems like even if the…

LGBTQ+ activism doesn't just involve fighting for rights for people who fall within those labels. It has evolved onto fighting for rights of EVERYONE who is currently being harrassed, targetted, and discriminate against. It's activism for human rights for everyone. Not every LGBTQ+ activist agrees with this evolution, but a large group do. I'm personally in that group.

It has evolved onto fighting for rights of EVERYONE who is currently being harrassed, targetted, and discriminate against. It's activism for human rights for everyone.

How is that different from just saying former LGBT+ activists have decided they need to broaden their focus to more general human rights activism?

This is like saying "Vegetarianism doesn't just involve eating vegetables. A lot of vegetarians have started eating meat."

Re: On Resigning from Google

#135

Post by ordinaryradical »

gnicholas wrote: post #35

> Well, it didn’t work in the PCUSA, where activists eventually won the fight to remove homophobia from the church constitution, and won the fight for marriage equality; and it’s unlikely to work at Google. I go to a PCUSA church and have a different view of this. Churches that did not agree with the changes to PCUSA's position split from the denomination and created the ECO denomination, which retains the prior posi…

It's honestly just a bad analogy on his part.

Bruce may agree with homosexuality-affirming theology and argue strongly (or even rightly!) that it should be adopted by his denomination, but denominations exist precisely so that they may create standards of unity in hermeneutics and interpretations. That's the whole purpose of belonging to one.

If you openly defy their positions or teach in opposition to them, you shouldn't expect to remain a part of that denomination—whether you know it or not, you're advocating for a new sect.

I think painting what happened as the work of some wilely, ill-minded lawyer is either extremely naïve or disingenuous.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#137

Post by taurath »

commandlinefan wrote: post #7
bla3 wrote: post #2

> www.alphabetworkers.org/ > The trouble with deep belief > The reason it’s unlikely to work is that although you can persecute the prophets Sounds a bit full of themselves. They worked for a company, they no longer like the company, they quit. Great, move on. No need to make a big deal about it. It's just a job.

Google (and, really, all of Northern California) has been actively courting these high-minded idealists for a long time. The problem with these types of people is that they invent windmills to tilt at when they run out.

Google has done more good than a lot of companies. Go compare it to Palantir etc.

There was a time where the search ad economy was such a great idea and a net benefit to society, and you could hire idealists to do the right things because hey some of them might end up being win-wins for both the business and society (See: Google Maps, Gmail, News, Android). Now though, the scale has shifted much more towards just squeezing all the juice out of the ad and data economy and keeping competitors out. There's not enough large-scale win-wins. This started when the self-driving car projects started really petering out. Innovation, real innovation in both products and also business plans has slowed down, at least within the big companies.

So where are these idealists supposed to go? Well, imo, on measure they've got PLENTY OF MONEY NOW, so they can and should go IMPROVE SOCIETY. Sure, some can stay within Google to try to hold up the barricade against capitalism and investor demands, but everyone knows the barricade will fall sooner rather than later. Like the original post's blog - thats what those people should be doing.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#138

Post by ocdtrekkie »

baddox wrote: post #95
paxys wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider what happens if everyone who has a moral complaint about their employer immediately quits This is in fact the quickest way to ensure that this behavior immediately stops

I don't think that's true, precisely because the employee with a complaint can potentially increase their leverage significantly by educating and organizing other employees around the cause. Your analysis seems to assume that there's some fixed percentage of employees who think some action from their employer is bad, and if that percentage is high enough, then all those employees could quit, which would either someho…

If everyone who participated in the Google Walkout (20% of their workforce) stayed out until Google addressed their complaints, rather than returning to work after their lunch hour was over, all seven demands would've been met, instead of one. (And they probably would've still got paid!) I have my doubts that tech companies could operate with a sudden loss of 20% of their workforce and talent base.

If a company knows you will return to work no matter how much you complain, they are not going to take you seriously. (This was the Walkout's mistake.) And if, as an individual, you make too much noise, you'll just get fired. (See numerous individual examples.) Decisive collective action works, and that's what unions figured out a long time ago.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#139

Post by paxys »

baddox wrote: post #95
paxys wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider what happens if everyone who has a moral complaint about their employer immediately quits This is in fact the quickest way to ensure that this behavior immediately stops

I don't think that's true, precisely because the employee with a complaint can potentially increase their leverage significantly by educating and organizing other employees around the cause. Your analysis seems to assume that there's some fixed percentage of employees who think some action from their employer is bad, and if that percentage is high enough, then all those employees could quit, which would either someho…

What do you think is the end result of all the "educating and organizing"? Do you think Google would make major policy decisions (which had massive financial and competitive impacts) because of employees emailing the CEO to voice their displeasure with what they are assigned to do (while they continue to do it regardless)?

Re: On Resigning from Google

#140

Post by lunias »

velcrovan wrote: post #129
paxys wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider what happens if everyone who has a moral complaint about their employer immediately quits This is in fact the quickest way to ensure that this behavior immediately stops

Your labor is your only real political power.

Sadly, labor is not that powerful anymore... especially when the company has the capital to replace you with 5 people tomorrow.

I think the political power can only be regained by pooling your labor with your peers.

Post reply on HN