> Companies being made up of people is no excuse for them doing these incredibly dumb, stupid and toxic things.
I never said it was -- I didn't defend anything about the actions themselves, but a lot of people were blaming "Google" as being awful, which is generalizing a local problem.
> That's what policies, mission statements and guidelines are for.
Yes... but these obviously don't apply everywhere. That's like saying "that's what laws are for" then being confused that criminals exist.
> people were hired by other people who ultimately were hired by the people at the very top who set an example for the corporate culture they want to create
Yes... and again, Google is rated by most agencies and people as having one of the best cultures out-there. This is not the end-all be-all predictive measure. Taking a hyperbolic example, one could imagine a world where Gandhi ended up recruiting someone who incited violence. You know, the whole Christian-crusades thing might be another example.
While you start off the sentence with an implicit agreement with mine ("I think it's equally important") you then go on to directly oppose it with views. It's not "equally important", you can't hold both side by side (not saying one or the other is more correct).
It's not hard to make an argument that Google has done _the best_ at keeping their "do no evil" culture at scale than any other company of their size (or even half their size). My point is the opposite of yours, which is you cannot control at a certain point, just as cells in your body do not replicate perfectly and produce mutations -- studies have shown that you only get around 13% of an accurate look at someone in the normal interview process, mistakes are bound to happen. People change for other reasons too, their are external pressures. No matter how perfect your values are, you will end up with people doing stupid shit.
* Not condoning any of the actions of Sidewalk Labs.