On Resigning from Google • Hacker News Board

Re: On Resigning from Google

#171

Post by gnicholas » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

g42gregory wrote: post #143

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…

I think that's right. Our ECO church, which split from PCUSA, is a very large one, with 6 locations. The services are always full. The reason for departure, though, was the building/land ownership, not the same-sex issues. I don't think there was much (or any?) discussions of same-sex issues during the split process.

On the off-chance you're talking about Menlo Church, my impression is that it was both. The real estate issues were less divisive, and therefore easier to focus on. Many churches struggle with the SSM issue because they don't want to alienate members on either side.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#172

Post by JMTQp8lwXL » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #39

paxys wrote: post #26

Random thoughts: 1. I applaud the fact that they are actually quitting the company to voice their disapproval of these policies. In my mind all the "internal activism" happening at Google and others is massively hypocritical. One cannot publicly criticize a company while enjoying cushy paychecks fueled by those very activities they despise. 2. If they think Google is discriminatory towards LGBT employees and minoriti…

Strongly disagree. > In my mind all the "internal activism" happening at Google and others is massively hypocritical. One cannot publicly criticize a company while enjoying cushy paychecks fueled by those very activities they despise. Absolutely incorrect. Paychecks have nothing to do with whether you as a person find the company's policies palatable or not. Google employees provide a lot more value to Google than th…

Most employees provide much more value to the company than they are compensated for. That's how being an employee generally works.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#173

Post by notJim » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #121

crdoconnor wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One cannot publicly criticize a company while enjoying cushy paychecks Why is it that you think that the people who see the sausage being made are exactly the ones most unqualified to criticize it?

These people aren't seeing the sausage being made — they are the ones making the sausage

Okay, so we're all at the sausage factory one day making sausage. We notice that we're shoving an awful lot of rat shit into the sausages, but the boss says it's more profitable this way. We get together and tell the boss, look we're not gonna keep shoving rat shit into the sausage. To you, this is illegitimate, because we're paying our rent out of profits from the rat shit, after all. So fine, we decide to leave. Now the boss hires new employees, and the process continues.

Ultimately, I think hypocrisy is the wrong lens to look at this through. Activists are not seeking purity or moral perfection, we're seeking change. Change requires organizing, which has to start within the company. An individual employee does fuck-all if they leave by themselves.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#174

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

jeffrogers wrote: post #142

It's hard to hear people object to Google on moral or ethical grounds when they don't mention the fallout from programmatic advertising. Google pioneered this technology, which has had an impact on both our security and privacy, and the company has been caught exceeding the public's data collection expectations repeatedly. Now, after looking at the company's most recent financials and noting the CPC declines, I wonde…

[deleted]

Re: On Resigning from Google

#175

Post by notJim » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #113

paxys wrote: post #26

Random thoughts: 1. I applaud the fact that they are actually quitting the company to voice their disapproval of these policies. In my mind all the "internal activism" happening at Google and others is massively hypocritical. One cannot publicly criticize a company while enjoying cushy paychecks fueled by those very activities they despise. 2. If they think Google is discriminatory towards LGBT employees and minoriti…

Strikes are more effective than unorganized internal advocacy and quitting. They force management to consider the viewpoint of workers or they lose control and money.

You can't start with the strike though. One person striking is called a sick day. You have to start with organizing, which necessarily means that you're going to be working at a place whose practices you disagree with.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#176

Post by veeralpatel979 » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

larkeith wrote: post #114

veeralpatel979 wrote: post #51

The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost. Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Instead, the Tesla model is the way to go. Build products that are 10x better than their fossil fuel reliant competitors. T…

> Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Until carbon taxes become ubiquitous, this seems like the only viable option to combat climate change. The current model is functionally subsidizing goods and energy at the cost of future and current environmental damage. While I certainly agree that government solutions (carbon taxes, subsidies for clean energy) are optimal,…

The solution isn't bankrupting fossil fuel companies.

The solution is finding viable replacements for these companies, whether it's solar, wind, nuclear, or something else, and then scaling them so they can serve everyone.

Finding viable replacements that people _want_ to use, along with carbon taxes, subsidies, etc should be sufficient to force some oil and gas companies to pivot to clean energy and make the rest die out or become substantially smaller.

And, this way, we would avoid a massive decrease in our quality of life, it would actually be practical, and consumers would benefit.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#177

Post by viklove » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

cdoxsey wrote: post #111

The oil and gas industry is essential to the well being of billions of people. It's literally the fuel for the world’s economy. Without it we would have substantially less food, travel would be all but impossible, and the technology sector would grind to a halt. Eliminating the industry would cause harm on a scale the world has never seen. An entirely predictable and preventable catastrophe done in the name of a naiv…

Your analysis isn't entirely incorrect, but you're kind of missing the point. Oil and gas companies one day were necessary and provided more value than destruction (as far as we knew). At this point though, it's clear that oil and gas will one day be a thing of the past, and these massive industries are desperately trying to cling on in the face of this.

Evidence of this is present in the lobbying efforts funded to the tune of billions of dollars a year (by these industries) to ensure regulations don't get passed, subsidies don't reach green technology, and information is suppressed. This is evil.

No one is contesting the fact that we needed oil and gas to reach where we are today. We're just contesting the fact that we still need to be expanding these industries, which lobbyists are trying to do every single day.

> Maybe let’s come up with solutions that don’t require pushing millions of people into poverty because they can no longer heat their homes or grow their food.

Maybe let's come up with a solution that prevents inevitable mass migrations, famine, and wars. (This statement is just as fallacious as yours -- see, I can do it too.)

Re: On Resigning from Google

#178

Post by JMTQp8lwXL » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

veeralpatel979 wrote: post #51

The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost. Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Instead, the Tesla model is the way to go. Build products that are 10x better than their fossil fuel reliant competitors. T…

A Tesla doesn't seem 10x better from getting to Point A to B. In fact, my only experience in an electric vehicle (driving along the California coast) was having to stop, get lunch, as vehicle charged for ~30 minutes. I didn't mind the stop, but it certainly isn't 10x better than a combustion engine commuter vehicle.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#179

Post by samsonradu » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

lunias wrote: post #140

velcrovan wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like an union, it has been brought up in tech from time to time.

https://mobile.twitter.com/codinghorror/status/1172279395035...

Re: On Resigning from Google

#180

Post by einpoklum » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

The author supports most of the outrageous conduct of Alphabet/Google in general, and is only disapproving of secondary (though not insignificant) issues.

The main concerns of the author are:

> 1. Persecution and firing of transgender and gay employees for their efforts to reform the firm > > 2. Google Cloud sales to the oil and gas industry > > 3. Expansion into the weapons industry and the business of killing

But Alphabet is much more problematic to begin with:

* It is a vast spying operation in favor of the US government and corporate and state allies around the world - going through your searches, your mail messages (even if you just send mail _to_ people with GMail), your geo-location.

* It is a significant gate-keeper of visibility of Internet content: It passively and actively promotes and demotes search results (not talking about the ads here) through its ranking algorithms, but also in direct near-censorship of undesirable information sources. This is true not just on platforms such as YouTube but also on Search, and in the US, not just China, and involves Google operatives actively screening search results. If you are not aware of this, see:

https://www.blog.google/products/search/our-latest-quality-i...

and

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/19/goog-s19.html

* I would also make the argument that, as a huge US corporation, it has significant responsibility for the maintenance of the current social order, with the ills of exploitation, huge disparity of wealth, high level of violence and violent homicides, poor health and other social services etc., degradation of the natural environment etc. in the US - and of the global order of dominance of the US over a lot of the world. Whether it goes into military products and services itself or just has the US government maintain its property rights and the financial systems on which it relies - is a matter of extent of culpability.

And while the author seems to touch on some of these points through a brief description of Google's nature as a corporation, it's strange that he stayed there for so long, and why those issues are the ones that broke the camel's back, so to speak. I guess there is some sort of a reality-warping bubble around Google somehow.