Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#521

Post by deadmetheny » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #383

simonsarris wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're proving his point. The Amazon is experiencing a more or less average amount of fire during its dry season as farmers clear/maintain cropland like they do every year. However, the internet media has turned this into sensationalism that captures people like you and turns them into doomsayers. From nasa.gov: > As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the…

Who is to say that the status quo isn't alarming, "things aren't worse than last year" isn't a valid argument that things are fine in any logical setting. And the internet has helped spread information, some of these issues may have been captured by Nat Geo in the 40s but others will have been missed. A status quo progression may be championed as an issue not because everyone previously accepted it but because no one…

Per the linked article:

"As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) Though activity appears to be above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates"

A status quo isn't inherently bad, and this one looks like it's been consistent for many years.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#522

Post by manigandham » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #355

stcredzero wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. It sounds like the work culture at Google has rediscovered the emergent factors which gave rise to the traditional cultural strictures against talking about money, politics, and religion. Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguab…

I remember the Founder's Letter included with Google's IPO in 2004 - "Google is not a traditional company. We do not intend to become one." It looks like they became one. The other interesting takeaway for me is how long-term equilibria can leave holes that may be exploited by short-term-focused actors . When Google was young, it's say-anything culture was a big competitive advantage: it let them hire people who were…

Every company becomes a "traditional" company because only traditional companies have survived. If alternative structures worked well then we would've seen them by now.

Also I'm willing to be that a startup's lack of bureaucracy and momentum lets it experiment and move faster rather than just a carefree internal attitude. I've been in midsize companies on both sides of the free-culture spectrum and have never noticed any major difference in talent or capabilities.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#523

Post by krapp » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #117

malka wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is political. So Google is obviously banning a subset of politic.

> Everything is political. Math is not political.

You should look up the history of the introduction of Arabic numerals to Europe (particularly the use of the numeral zero in accounting) or "illegal numbers" and reconsider your point of view.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#524

Post by retbull » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

cco wrote: post #489

nostrademons wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the Founder's Letter included with Google's IPO in 2004 - "Google is not a traditional company. We do not intend to become one." It looks like they became one. The other interesting takeaway for me is how long-term equilibria can leave holes that may be exploited by short-term-focused actors . When Google was young, it's say-anything culture was a big competitive advantage: it let them hire people who were…

You live long enough to become a terrible company, bought by one, or go bankrupt.

Traditional doesn't mean terrible. You can use cultural queues from previous versions without taking the toxic parts.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#525

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

jonas21 wrote: post #413

stcredzero wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. It sounds like the work culture at Google has rediscovered the emergent factors which gave rise to the traditional cultural strictures against talking about money, politics, and religion. Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguab…

> Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguably an intellectually friendly environment, where more people than average understand how to talk in ways that get closer to truth, the inadvertent experiment conducted by Google over the past 15 years or so should hold a lot of weight. But what conclusion should be drawn from this experiment? During those years, Google grew into a large and profitable company,…

You could look at message boards in the public space, Yammer, etc and draw the same conclusions. Online communities always have a critical mass where increasingly strong moderation is required.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#526

Post by larvaetron » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

jshowa3 wrote: post #487

oppositelock wrote: post #187

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

In most states, political discussion in the work place is considered illegal. California has some odd laws though that protect people from this.

In which states? I've never heard of an instance where any state legislature passed a rule that forbids employees from discussing politics. I'm surprised there wouldn't be massive outrage over it.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#527

Post by blueboo » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #518

einhverfr wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it is what my colleagues and I often do over lunch break. Since it is a break, it is outside of work, right?

Try that argument next time you invent something on a lunch break and want the patent assigned to you :)

Try making the argument that the invention was developed purely over the course of lunch

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#528

Post by tunesmith » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

oppositelock wrote: post #187

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

Some people can handle civil discussion with people of differing values, and some people can't.

I wonder what the difference is, I mean beyond just painting someone who can't as a jerk.

I think it has to do with learned skills of emotional self-regulation... someone with those skills is better able to hold their perspective while allowing that of another. But how does one learn that?

It might have to do with safety. I suspect that the people that are better able to have those kind of civil discussions have had good behavior modeled to them in the past, that has increased their own sense of safety, like from someone else in a position of power that has demonstrably respected their opinion even when they held different values.

Could that be the krux of it, that most "uncivil behavior" in this realm is from people that are reacting from a sense of danger, like that if they meet a person with differing values they automatically believe they are being threatened? (Recognizing that sometimes that belief is correct.)

I also wonder if there's a universal central reason behind why it is important to understand someone else's argument if their conclusion differs than yours.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#529

Post by lmpostor » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

LordFast wrote: post #466

jgunsch wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked there for a similar length of time, but more recent (2012 - early 2019). The internal political discourse over that time definitely mirrored the rest of the world: becoming increasingly heated and divisive during 2016 and largely escalating since. On the whole, it felt like it pushed the company in a positive direction --- internal discussions mirroring #metoo led to more visibility of sexual harassment and…

Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…

> How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world?

That of a regular human being with rationalized opinions through the lens available to them? For some reason only because Google has a lot of power to control the dialogue you ask them to bury their head in the sand? Or are we going to pretend that there hasn't been an arms race of sorts to game search results across nearly every topic and as such one might consider removal of what one considers to either be harmful, false, or manipulative to be a part of doing the "right" job?

What's the quote again, " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing " -- Edmund Burke

And as far as Google goes, I think it would be easy to rationalize that (if I was a Google member) I have access to better tools than most to make a decision (more information).

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#530

Post by cookiecaper » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #369

From the other side - if the world is on fire but a portion of the population thinks everything is just fine and dandy... is it appropriate for everyone to be politely quite until that portion comes to their own realization that the world is on fire? What if that never happens? I feel like the gun control debate is particularly relevant - whenever a shooting happens one side calmly says "This is unfortunate but unavo…

> This is a divide we need to resolve.

The question is how much of that needs to be hammered out at work.

Part of the problem may be that we've tied the workplace so intimately into our lives that it's cramming out activities vital to the civilization's health, like participation in local civic, religious, or charitable organizations, where such topics are generally not only welcome but often the rasion d'etre.

Employees have a very understandable impulse to do something to influence social health for good, and if work becomes the only place where such an impulse can feel effectively fulfilled, it's no surprise that political discussion spills over irrespective of management dicta.

Rather than decreeing political discussion off-limits, maybe Google could consider something like reorienting and/or resurrecting 20% time to focus on allowing employees to effectively practice good citizenship, rather than using that time to generate new IP for Google to hoard.