Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#421

Post by nailer » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #404

nailer wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe you couldn't think of a reason to not support mass migration other than 'racism', but Sweden let around a million people into a country of 10 million in an unmanaged fashion which is causing a lot of social issues? Germany where Angela Merkel let in 5 million people and the CDU lost a huge amount of support after similar things happened?

Quantify those issues. At the scale of millions of people (I'm going to assume your 50 million was a typo, not that you're innumerate or gullible), one must quantify. If 100 people out of 100,000 who migrate cause problems, and they are all fleeing intolerable living conditions, then the only reasonable way you can say that all 100,000 should be shut out is if you value the welfare of the 99,900 so low that it is out…

Most European migrants are financial migrants rather than refugees. A journalist went to Calais during the supposed 'Syrian refugee crisis' there and found 0 Syrians.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#422

Post by rphlx » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #38

For those interested in watching the video without feeding into Brietbart's ad/engagement numbers, I've mirrored it here: https://yossarian.net/google.mp4

Be wary of the legal implications. At minimum GOOG can probably claim copyright and do a DMCA takedown.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#423

Post by Janeman544 » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #319

Seems no one understands Popper's Paradox. Lots of talk about it being unfair that a workplace is intolerant of people who are intolerant. There are just some values that are not negotiable for a modern, civilized, homogeneous society. We're not talking about debates about the level of social welfare, or regulation, we're talking about common decency of treating people equally, regardless of gender, sexuality, or eth…

Only if definitions of "tolerance" and "equality" were that simple. Not all people on left are tolerant. As a Hindu I have found that the left is far more intolerant of Pagans that Christian conservatives in USA. Libertarians are easily one of the most tolerant of them all but the left does not like them either.

Painting people you don't like as "intolerant" and "deserving of persecution" was precisely how Hitler convinced Germans that it was okay to kill Jews.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#424

Post by Domenic_S » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

theossuary wrote: post #325

Domenic_S wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened with your friend's wife? Did she come over?

Considering Trump is still in power, and the travel ban is still in effect, I'd say that's a no. Americans have a short memory.

The ban has exceptions for, for ex. students; there are still ways.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#425

Post by peterwwillis » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #116

peterwwillis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What media organization on this planet doesn't make decisions about what users should and shouldn't see? Breitbart does it, The New York Times does it, your local news channels do it. Google as a news broker is literally just showing you what Google wants to show you. I don't know why you'd think they wouldn't have a bias, or filter their output based on it. All media does.

None of those is a fraction as powerful as Google, which is an $800 billion goliath with multiple hyper entrenched monopolies. Those monopolies entirely change the equation and expectations. Search, Android, YouTube. All three of those are either monopolies or close to it. YouTube by itself is worth a solid 20 times what the NY Times is. Breitbart is maybe worth $100m, a top 100 US Web site with a couple million read…

Where'd you get that number? Google made 109 billion last year, not 800. Alphabet made 110 billion. Amazon made 177 billion.

In comparison, Facebook made just 40 billion in revenue, but more people get their news from Facebook today than anywhere else. So really it's Facebook that's let the genie out, and they didn't need to be the wealthiest corporation or a monopoly to do it.

These are large corporations made up of lots of people and represent a wide array of shareholders' concerns. But individual billionaires also own media companies, and thus can have greater personal influence on what is expressed through those companies. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-...

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#426

Post by whytaka » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #249

whytaka wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Providing food is meaningful, providing shelter is meaningful, extracting raw resources is meaningful, taxation and welfare are meaningful, taxation and government services are meaningful. I could go io but that covers the basic point. I'm amazed to read that you don't think these things don't change the world. And more so that you don't think these things are political! Agriculture is political. Land development i…

The problem is when they become involved in political issues that are unrelated to their economic activity.

Yes, but to Google, the proper representation of facts is related to their economic activity.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#427

Post by lern_too_spel » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #48

roenxi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I value political neutrality in the workplace, so I have a lot of in-principle issues with what is being shown here right from the get-go. I didn't wind the video back to find the exact quote, but we now have publicised evidence of senior leadership at Google who stood up and said 'obviously our values are not the same as a big chunk of Americans'. Clearly a lot of them are specific Hillary supporters, a candidate so…

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think search should be regulated, and part of that regulation should be some standard for political neutrality [0]. However, there is no neutral algorithm to this problem. Any algorithm favors certain sites over others. There is almost definitely going to be some correlation between the sites that are favored and the content of those sites, political or otherwise. There is s…

If one or more parties is pushing misinformation, the only way to be politically neutral is to give misinformation the same standing as correct information. Society does not benefit from such a policy.

It is better to have a policy of factual correctness at a minimum. Politicians should adjust to accommodate that.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#428

Post by nerdnumerouno » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #399

mciancia wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaand that is just another example of what OP is talking about ;)

Can you explain how so? I guess I'm putting forward two points: 1) Being a hateful person with a desire to oppress innocents seems to aptly qualify for the label of monster. 2) Those who equate republicans with monsters do so because of the republicans' current active support and promotion of hateful people and their desire to oppress the innocents. Nothing here seems unfair to me, or irrational. I feel it all simply…

You are a mentally ill and insolent. Take a hike.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#429

Post by skedaddle » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #59

roenxi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I value political neutrality in the workplace, so I have a lot of in-principle issues with what is being shown here right from the get-go. I didn't wind the video back to find the exact quote, but we now have publicised evidence of senior leadership at Google who stood up and said 'obviously our values are not the same as a big chunk of Americans'. Clearly a lot of them are specific Hillary supporters, a candidate so…

>I value political neutrality in the workplace Political neutrality is just political support of the status quo. That is a perfectly acceptable political stance to take, but you should recognize it is still a political stance.

Neutrality is different than support for the status quo. The status quo actually requires constant political activity to maintain. It's changed dramatically in the past decade. To support the status quo you would have had to restrict politics to e.g. Hillary Clinton on one side Marco Rubio on the other. You might consider that "neutrality" but I think what GP meant was rather that they prefer colleagues and management not to talk politics at all.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#430

Post by mariodiana » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #319

Seems no one understands Popper's Paradox. Lots of talk about it being unfair that a workplace is intolerant of people who are intolerant. There are just some values that are not negotiable for a modern, civilized, homogeneous society. We're not talking about debates about the level of social welfare, or regulation, we're talking about common decency of treating people equally, regardless of gender, sexuality, or eth…

Setting aside the validity of Popper's Paradox, you might actually consider that you're on the wrong end of it: meaning, you're the intolerant one. I'm serious. Because you slander people who hold views opposite to yours and look to silence them once you have taken hold of power.

A person can be for immigration enforcement and NOT be an ethno-smethmo whateveryourecallingit. If you don't control your border, you're not a nation.