121–130 of 368 posts
When I was at Google, Google was systematically silencing Arabs and Palestinians. They had brought in a specific team to comb through memegen and silence any pro-Palestinian (literally pro the people, while anti Hamas) messaging. While I was there, multiple Googlers actively reached out to me and other Arabs and asked them "Do you support Hamas?" These also weren't just low-level employees either. I had these experie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This needs to be emphasized more. It's not that they took a stance, it's definitely how they did it that warranted being fired over it.
What's a good way to take a stance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The ICJ didn't rule on whether or not Israel was committing genocide. It said Israel needed to take the steps to not commit genocide. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/key-takeaways-worl...
[0]: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: Is this a common function of a union? For instance, I don't seem to recall hearing much about auto-workers taking ethical stances and being protected from termination by their union. But it's also not something I've paid much attention to, so maybe this is indeed something unions do. I'm genuinely curious.
The UAW recently called for a ceasefire: https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-israel-palestine/
Expecting a company to kowtow to your belief system betrays a conceited/pretentious view of the world around you. If you don't like the job, leave it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of work can be inherently political. If your company pivots into mass surveillance is it unreasonable to speak up if it's against your ethics framework?
That's the beauty of the free market, you have the freedom of choice. You can vote with your wallet or your feet. You can leave if your personal ethics and morality no longer align with the organization you're working for. A business doesn't owe you a paycheck simply because you think you're on the moral high ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The ICJ didn't rule on whether or not Israel was committing genocide. It said Israel needed to take the steps to not commit genocide. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/key-takeaways-worl...
https://global.upenn.edu/perryworldhouse/news/explaining-int...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
ICJ was not asked to convict Israel of committing genocide. That was not in the initial ask. The ask was to force Israel to stop its military operation. The ICJ's provisional verdict was _actually pretty bad_ for Israel: "The aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some rights of the Palestinians to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts in Article 3 of…
> Google fired an employee who disrupted an Israel executive’s conference keynote this week, CNBC has learned. Rightfully so. Name me the big tech company who wouldn't fire such an employee instantly.
The employee clearly wanted to be fired, wanted to vilify the company, and wanted the news to broadcast the matter. Who in their right mind who says “I refuse to build technology that ____” wouldn’t already be planning to quit barring outrageous hypocrisy? Who in their right mind screams it out in the middle of a presentation without expecting to be dragged out?
Personally I don't think firing him helps Google's PR, rather it makes them look even more "evil". (To clarify, I am NOT saying that it is unexpected for a company to fire such a person. Expectations != what's the morally correct != reality, I'm just commenting on a part of the equation.)
Is there a word for the "If I don't get paid for building a baby-killing-machine someone else will" type of regressive attitude that many self-deluded contrarians exhibit in the tech industry? Many such people would be diligent VW/Mercedes/Tesch and Stabenow/Degesch employees during WW2.
[flagged]
This is "Professionalism" to you, jfc.