Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

breitbart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 486 posts

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

#451

Post by rphlx »

rsj_hn wrote: post #76
skybrian wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. Maybe you could have used platitudes like "America has survived worse" and "most people in government will follow the law, even if he doesn't." But those aren't particularly comforting.

I was around when Bush won re-election. After he lied us into war. I couldn't believe it. I was absolutely stunned, depressed, and horrified that something like that could happen. Yet not once did I expect my employer to "comfort" me. I mean, my God, that's not the job of an employer. Friends comfort you. Your employer is not your friend.

Google appears to have a long history of infantilizing its workforce, partly - one hopes - as a sort of group-bonding in-joke, and partly - one suspects - as a darker psychological management strategy with objectives that are not always unambiguously in the infant's best interest.

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

#452

Post by smsm42 »

azinman2 wrote: post #394
igravious wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s something the Breitbart audience can’t wrap their mind around, as they’d never do the same. Which clearly reveals _your_ bias. Well done. You can't compare Google to the ACLU. The ACLU has a track record defending free speech and freedom of expression. As long as the speech and expression does not contravene any laws the ACLU will defend it – it's irrelevant to them what values the speech and expression they…

I’m not google. I don’t have to reject or hide my bias, and in fact this forum is exactly for positing ones bias. And reading the comments on Breitbart what I said should become self-evident. Google has been very consistent in showing its bias for an open, connected, free world where quality information is accessible. It was formed by immigrants, and has been vocal in their importance. The Trump campaign was the exac…

> Google has been very consistent in showing its bias for an open, connected, free world where quality information is accessible

I guess that's why they've been working with China to create censored sub-internet?

> It was formed by immigrants,

It was formed by Page and Brin, only Brin can be classified as "immigrant" and even him not of his own volition - he was brought in the US by his parents when he was 6.

> Nothing you’ve said points to the fact that they’ve actually silenced “non-left” news.

If by "silenced" you mean completely prevented access, then yes, Google does not have this power. Fortunately, almost nobody does. Biasing the picture, though, is another matter. US politics as it is now is often balancing on results of pretty close elections, and couple of thousands of votes thrown either way can do a lot. Google has access to data about billions, including vast majority of people in the US. People at Google are not shy about proclaiming at which side there are, and some also not shy about declaring they utter lack of respect and tolerance to the other side. Maybe there's a line they still would not cross and that line is way before it could influence any work decisions - but how exactly we can know that and believe that?

> And having worked there twice, the culture I observed is such that they’d never want to do such things

Are you sure that your acknowledged bias did not make you miss the willingness to suppress views that both you and your peers vehemently disagree with and hold despicable?

> It’s antithetical to their world view to silence political viewpoints

It's not what it looks like on the outside, at least. Just throw in "it's ok to be intolerant to those bad outgroup people" and you're in the clear. I don't see any hard commitment to free speech from Google. Maybe the people you've encountered that have this commitment are not actually those who dictate the policies?

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

#453

Post by simonsarris »

whack wrote: post #436
simonsarris wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except there are plenty of rational reasons one might want to restrict immigration by country, as even Gwern has gone over before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13859767 > immigrant outcomes differ by orders of magnitude by country and that this has considerable implications for the immigration debate and that many of the arguments made by the left for illegal immigration & open borders range from ignorant to…

> To put forth either of these as reasons to restrict immigration from one set of countries, and encourage immigration from another, almost always gets you labeled a racist That is the very definition of racism. You're ascribing negative traits to specific races/ethnicities/countries, and using that as justification for discriminating against all individuals from that demographic. If you want to advocate for racist p…

So you must believe the 1985 Schengen Agreement to be a racist policy, then. Or any international treaty delineated by a set of countries. That's quite the odd position in my opinion, I don't share your beliefs.

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

#454

Post by danharaj »

smsm42 wrote: post #440
danharaj wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for one, intersectionality is about how one describes reality, it is by no means normative and a cursory glance at the wikipedia page indicates as much, with citations if one is so inclined to put any effort at all in thinking critically. But are you?

> intersectionality is about how one describes reality I am sorry, but this is one of the most useless definitions I've read lately. Almost any human activity and any point of view can be described as "about how one describes reality", from quantum gravity theory to buddhism. And, on top of that, it does not contradict the premise bitlax described above. I am all for thinking critically but if you proclaim that the d…

Lol

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

#455

Post by smsm42 »

danharaj wrote: post #454
smsm42 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> intersectionality is about how one describes reality I am sorry, but this is one of the most useless definitions I've read lately. Almost any human activity and any point of view can be described as "about how one describes reality", from quantum gravity theory to buddhism. And, on top of that, it does not contradict the premise bitlax described above. I am all for thinking critically but if you proclaim that the d…

Lol

Good answer. Thank you for a thoughtful discussion.

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

#456

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#457

Post by xyzzyz »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #163
tinkerteller wrote: post #160

This is great stuff and chance to see Google’s famous TGIFs. Also rare chance to hear Larry Page’s changed voice. It’s beyond shocking however that leaders of search engine business so openly preaching their political views. Given this is at the highest level, one cannot have confidence that things would remain bias free. I would have expected these leaders to make sure they keep their political views to themselves j…

Google was around when W was elected and re-elected and nothing of the sort happened at their all hands then. It’s absolutely different because the particular candidate that won is uniquely odious in his approach and policy proposals that has/could negatively impact the lives of many Googlers.

Overall negative impact on Googlers of decade-long war, increased airport security and PATRIOT act in general has greatly outpaced whatever extra negative impact Trump has caused so far and will cause in foreseeable future. I'm not surprised in the slightest that majority of Googlers are not liking Trump very much; there are plenty of very good reasons to do so. However, as much as media hype it, let's not pretend that he's so much worse that W in terms of what actually happened since his election.

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

#458

Post by belorn »

whack wrote: post #436
simonsarris wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except there are plenty of rational reasons one might want to restrict immigration by country, as even Gwern has gone over before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13859767 > immigrant outcomes differ by orders of magnitude by country and that this has considerable implications for the immigration debate and that many of the arguments made by the left for illegal immigration & open borders range from ignorant to…

> To put forth either of these as reasons to restrict immigration from one set of countries, and encourage immigration from another, almost always gets you labeled a racist That is the very definition of racism. You're ascribing negative traits to specific races/ethnicities/countries, and using that as justification for discriminating against all individuals from that demographic. If you want to advocate for racist p…

When the right talk about toxic and destructive cultures and suggest policy to address it then that is racism and discrimination.

When the left talk about toxic and destructive masculinity and suggest policy to address it then that is using clear language and decisive action about a structural issue in society.

We could be making sensible policies based on each individuals own merit and it would be great. No more women vs men, immigrant vs nationalist, white vs black. It is the future I would like to have but what I am getting is the choice between two ideologies who each ascribing negative traits to their own set of races and gender, with policies to match.

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

#459

Post by rsj_hn »

tcbawo wrote: post #86
rsj_hn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, corporations are in it for the money, and they are hypocrites, etc. I don't think most people have a problem with that (except maybe those who think corporations are moral agents), but what's been happening recently is very concerning: 1. Corporations, always wanting to appeal to younger voters because brand loyalty is sticky, naturally try to position themselves externally as hip/woke/whatever. That means espou…

Technology and information overload are driving everybody to think their viewpoint is the suppressed majority, feeding a victim mentality. We seem to be working towards more of a massively individual polyculture than monoculture. Also, we shouldn't always project everything into right and left, as there are other orthogonal dimensions for framing policy (eg. authoritarian and individualistic). That's a hidden cost of…

I totally agree that this is not a right/left issue per se. There are many competing strains:

traditionalists are skeptical of radical social change, but may also be skeptical of turning everything over the free market

libertarians just want to be left alone and don't want anyone telling them what to do

leftists may be communitarians or anarchists or even neoliberals who want to abolish national borders

And people may have different views on different scales -- e.g. I know a lot of Nimby's who oppose new people they don't like moving into their neighborhood and think they should have a right to keep them out, but at the same time support open borders for the nation as a whole.

And to be honest, I think there is something to recommend each of these views. Nobody is entirely the enemy. What bothers me is attempts to blacklist arguments/speech or to suppress open debate between these competing views. That really bothers me. It's like you can't just disagree with someone, you have to snuff them out, try to get them fired, and expel the enemy entirely from your view. It's a recipe for disaster.

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

#460

Post by rsj_hn »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #410
rsj_hn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, corporations are in it for the money, and they are hypocrites, etc. I don't think most people have a problem with that (except maybe those who think corporations are moral agents), but what's been happening recently is very concerning: 1. Corporations, always wanting to appeal to younger voters because brand loyalty is sticky, naturally try to position themselves externally as hip/woke/whatever. That means espou…

Can you give us some examples of number 2 happening? Because all I've heard about is those companies removing people who are whipping up their followers to abuse somebody. It is possible that there are examples of them removing people who are merely expressing conservative values, but I haven't seen it yet.

Well, say person X thinks we should have fewer H1-B visas. Person Y thinks to themselves "Hey, this is my enemy! He is trying to expel me from the country! He's attacking me! He makes me feel unsafe"

And all of a sudden, you can claim to be firing people for being abusive, when in reality you are firing someone for expressing their policy preferences.

And if we really want to have open debate, we need to discuss these things. Imagine if you are pro raising capital gains taxes, or repealing Prop 13, and someone else depends on that for their livelihood. They will feel personally threatened. Or someone who is pro-life might make someone who is pro-choice feel personally threatened. And I haven't even gotten into foreign policy.

In this modern era where everyone is screaming about being "unsafe" whenever they hear something that they oppose, and everything is personalized, pretty much everything that you feel strongly about is going to sound abusive to you if you are on the other side.

Post reply on HN