Live data from Hacker News

Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics

washingtonpost.com

261–270 of 290 posts

Re: Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh I get it. TBH I think this is a generational divide and we’ll have to agree to disagree.

It was relevant because it might explain Google's hesitancy to react to it.

Yes, it can certainly be relevant on that and other contextual grounds. It's also where things drift into realm of speculation, away from what we know from the facts at hand.

All I've been saying (which I thought was obvious) was: when considering whether the actions of these people (who sent the "Do you support Hamas?" emails) -- as individuals -- constitute a form of intimidation (and it seems obvious that they do; and from what you said, apparently sanctioned by their higher-ups, no less) --

One has to keep their personal attributes out of the discussion. That's just how the legal and ethical standards for these things work.

Again, thanks for the disclosure. It definitely sounds quite creepy. Especially considering the apparent lack of action taken by the higher-ups.

Re: Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics

#262
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking for more detail, came across: > The advertisements thus formally promote the Hungarian government’s anti-migrant measures. At the same time, they also stress the dangers of migration and the violence of migrants. These advertisements also appeared in countries when allies of the Orbán government, also campaigning with anti-migrant slogans, were competing in parliamentary or local elections. [...] > Google dis…

If you want to see for yourself, VPN to Hungary and try YouTube when signed out.

You can see them here as well:

https://adstransparency.google.com/advertiser/AR090162861685...

Re: Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics

#263
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are literally hundreds of videos and witness testimony evidencing war crimes perpetrated by Israel. There are even mass graves being uncovered which is reported by mainstream media. Humanitarianaid is being held back or bombed by IDF. What on Earth are you talking about? How can one dispute that Israel is a genocidal apartheid?

> How can one dispute that Israel is a genocidal apartheid? Let me talk specifically about the "genocidal" aspect, because Apartheid is a separate topic. If you're coming from a place of "of course Israel is committing genocide", I don't think it very likely that I'm going to convince you otherwise. That is the "default" narrative in many circles (just like the opposite narrative also exists in many circles). That sa…

>but it is targeting militants.

This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families.

Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not because we are talking about any specific country, but because we are taking at face value statements of an interested party. If you also add that most important humanitarian organizations are ringing alarms, they are not allowing investigations from independent parties, and the domestic discourse is definitely not dovish.

You might be right, there might not be any ill intent from Israel, yet you cannot argue that the conclusion that a genocide is happening is baseless.

Re: Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its intellectually dishonest for people to not recognize this in themselves with that opinion. Everything we do is inherently political as we are operating in this political landscape. This is how fundamentalists think, whether religious or political. Everything is somehow tied to their ideology and they want to push it everywhere. I wonder if they know how insufferable they are.

> Everything is somehow tied to their ideology and they want to push it everywhere. That's not what I said. I said everything we do is fundamentally political.

That is what makes you a fundamentalist. If everything was political then the word political had no meaning.

Re: Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics

#265
post #30
post #5

Sure, if all it takes is raising a rainbow flag on top of the building and some words of the CEO they are all for it. But as soon as Google's bottom line is involved they behave pretty predictable.

I hope I'm not considered a troll for asking this question; I will ask on my main account and hopefully people will check my comment history to understand I am not intending to be belligerent or intentionally dumb. But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict. I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were…

There's the idea, that TBH I don't fully subscribe, that solidarity is not transactional. But what I do subscribe is that little kids don't bear the blame of what people do against LGBTQ+ communities.

Re: Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics

#266
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can one dispute that Israel is a genocidal apartheid? Let me talk specifically about the "genocidal" aspect, because Apartheid is a separate topic. If you're coming from a place of "of course Israel is committing genocide", I don't think it very likely that I'm going to convince you otherwise. That is the "default" narrative in many circles (just like the opposite narrative also exists in many circles). That sa…

>but it is targeting militants. This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families. Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not becau…

> This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families.

You're right. And absent further context, I'd consider that to be a war crime. However, there's very little evidence that that is happening - afaik it was one article, which quoted a couple of people in the intelligence units without a clear understanding of their exact position. For all we know, they are junior analysts who don't have the full context.

> Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not because we are talking about any specific country, but because we are taking at face value statements of an interested party.

This is kind of true. However, worth noting a few things:

1. Many of these points are backed up by the US. Not all - the US also criticizes some of Israel's actions (as do I). But this only gives it more credibility in the cases where it backs up Israel. Other countries do so as well, and as I pointed out elsewhere, IIRC multiple democracies denounced the ICJ case of genocide against Israel (with multiple autocracies backing it - I certainly know which conclusion I draw from this).

2. Israel is a democracy with a free press. Hence articles like the one about targeting militant's families. There are some very leftist organizations in Israel, and multiple leftist newspapers/journalists. Investigating in real time in a war zone is hard, but most information is eventually discovered and revealed, often by Israeli journalists themselves.

That's paradoxically why democracies sometimes "look worse" compared to autocracies, but also why I trust that many abuses/crimes do eventually get discovered.

3. Everything negative we know is also something we take at face value from an interested party - Hamas itself. This includes the total number of casualties, and some semblance of what is the split between civilians vs militants (though they don't actually provide the number of militants killed).

These numbers are far harder to verify, because Hamas can just make things up and no one really holds them accountable. Again, paradox of autocracies vs democracies.

(That's not to say I think everything is made up or anything - there are obviously tragedies as evidenced by many individual accounts of terrible deaths, including of many civilians!)

> You might be right, there might not be any ill intent from Israel, yet you cannot argue that the conclusion that a genocide is happening is baseless.

Even taking the Hamas death toll numbers totally at face value, and likewise taking Israel's estimates of militants killed also at face value, we can compare the rate of civilian deaths in Gaza vs. in other similar wars fought by the West. And the rates in Gaza are fairly in line with e.g. US war against ISIS in Urban combat. And the situation in Gaza is far harder, as attested by most military experts, because Hamas has had 20 years of rule to entrench themselves in the civilian population.

I think any honest look at the numbers shows that there isn't anything to actually justify calls of genocide, unless you also call the US actions in Iraq/Afghanistan, or the fight against ISIS, also genocide. If you do - ok, that's at least consistent, but I think that's actively misusing that word.

If we just look at the number of dead in most conflicts - they're orders of magnitude more than killed in Gaza. (Obvious tragic exmaple being the Syrian civil war, in which iirc 600k civilians were killed, but also again, Iraq/Afghanistan war in which 150k civilians were killed.)

(And let me caveat this - all human lives lost are tragedies. Even Hamas militants and IDF soldiers are tragic losses, mostly young people thrown into this situation by circumstance.

I only talk about this in terms of broad numbers because that's necessary for understanding this war compared to similar wars, which is the only valid yardstick for what is happening.)

Re: Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't agree. Here the sarcasm isn't used to belittle the victims but to mock and shame the perpetrators.

Yeah I bet the Qatar monarchy is absolutely red with shame because someone offhandedly made a sarcastic comment about them on the interwebs

Sigh. When someone shames powerful people on the internet they are generally not expecting the people in question to see it. (Well, except it's about Elon Musk :) The intention is rather to raise awareness among the general public.
Post reply on HN