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

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

#591

Post by LordFast » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

lmpostor wrote: post #529

LordFast wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Let me clarify:

- A non-decision by Google management to not place limits on its internal culture is a decision in itself, and has consequences that we are currently experiencing.

- "Justice" is not something for a profit-seeking company to have influence or power over. This is my personal belief. I believe there are other channels that are better designed to address those issues.

- My belief on this subject is limited to the above.

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

#592

Post by manfredo » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:07 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #562

manfredo wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right they cited "perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes". From which we can infer that Google believes that claiming that absent any discrimination or social pressure women would not work in tech at the same rates as men as "perpetuating gender stereotypes".

You are misrepresenting their point. There are many reasons why women don't go into IT. And whilst you can look at at it holistically it is ultimately a personal decision. And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women from entering IT.

> And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women from entering IT.

The memo did not claim this. The references to innate differences were only in reference to women's choices. At no point did the author claim they women "aren't physically suited" to IT.

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

#593

Post by munk-a » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:07 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #560

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…

I agree that it's unreasonable to argue against having a discussion for the sake of decorum. If the discussion needs to happen, it needs to happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that many anti-gun control advocates think the current state of affairs is fine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think a conversation is important to have because you believe that such a conversation would reshape the world in a way t…

> You first sentence also kind of assumes that the side that believes the world is on fire is correct. It would probably be beneficial to allow the discussion of politics at work if the side that believed the world was on fire was indeed always correct, but sometimes they aren't, and what then?

I was trying to avoid wording the above with any bias one way or the other - presenting both sides in their self-promoted light... The problem is that I think it's unclear when the world is on-fire or not and when you feel that a discussion isn't world ending it might just be that your thoughts are trapped in a bubble and you're having difficulty empathizing with the reason why the other side thinks the world is on fire. Certainly the world isn't on fire in every conceivable way, but evaluating whether a problem warrants a discussion or not is already a potentially opinionated decision.

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

#594

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #46

BurningFrog wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they have work to do. That's why they're there.

Exactly. If I'm working on a team that is rolling out a new Google drive feature, I really don't need to hear you talk about why drinking straws are a phallic symbol and used by the patriarchy to keep woman down. We have work to do.

It's very easy to decry literal straw man arguments. As a googler, I don't think I've seen much discussion of drinking straws at all, and certainly none about how they're phallic.

If you think any discussion of politics is that infantile, I don't think there's anything I can do or say to convince you otherwise, but for everyone else, just recognize that this example is ridiculous. And real, actual, conversations about political topics aren't anywhere near as asenine. They're about important things, that often are relevant to work: privacy, discrimination (inentional and non-, by both people and machines), and literal actual government policy that affects google and googlers: immigration, taxes, etc.

I'm not sure how you could avoid those topics and still be an effective employee, or in some cases still be an employee at all.

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

#595

Post by lacampbell » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

t0astbread wrote: post #272

magashna wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you demanded the "privilege" of discussing politics at work, I'd promptly not hire/fire you.

The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo. * edit: changed "competition" to "opposition"

The "privilege" here is that banning discussions about politics can be used as a tool to silence the opposition of the current status quo.

By definition there are two camps of opposition to the current status quo - one to the left of it, and one to the right of it.

Would you accept both sides of it being allowed to speak freely in tech companies, or just the side you are on?

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

#596

Post by munk-a » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

deadmetheny wrote: post #521

munk-a wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wanted to clarify that my statement above isn't specific to this article. I was trying to make a general reply, with consideration to the rest of the thread, to that original point and general statement.

I'm not in a position to evaluate how dire this specific instance is with any sort of confidence in my findings.

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

#597

Post by avocado4 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:10 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…

The toxic echo chamber was one of the worst things about working at Google. The pinnacle was being peer forced to walk out during one of the recent outrage events - how can you possibly be the only person on the team to not walk out? To make things worse, you find yourself stuck in public expected to chant anti-capitalist, anti-police, and anti-male slurs during what was supposed to be a #MeToo march, which felt absolutely gross.

The fact that they are starting to crack down on this toxic environment is long overdue. My guess is that they are starting to see tangible attrition of top performers (who happen to be predominantly white & asian males) quoting this as a reason to leave, which threatens their existence. Hence the change.

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

#598

Post by ksdale » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #593

ksdale wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's unreasonable to argue against having a discussion for the sake of decorum. If the discussion needs to happen, it needs to happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that many anti-gun control advocates think the current state of affairs is fine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think a conversation is important to have because you believe that such a conversation would reshape the world in a way t…

> You first sentence also kind of assumes that the side that believes the world is on fire is correct. It would probably be beneficial to allow the discussion of politics at work if the side that believed the world was on fire was indeed always correct, but sometimes they aren't, and what then? I was trying to avoid wording the above with any bias one way or the other - presenting both sides in their self-promoted li…

Yeah, I appreciate the lengths you went to to avoid bias! This is spot on.

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

#599

Post by gwbas1c » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #453

devy wrote: post #428

This article makes it seem like debating politics is a good practices in workplace. It is NOT! Talking politics in workplace is not professional - different political opinions can wreck marriages, it can certainly wreck your job too! Just think about what if your boss is having a completely different political opinions than what you belief. Also any major corporations leaning one side of the political party would imm…

In the EU, freedom from discrimination on the basis of political opinion is considered a fundamental right, and is mentioned as such in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Private conversations about politics thus is entirely outside the scope of what the company is allowed to care about. Public comments, for example on global email lists, would be a different topic.

> Public comments, for example on global email lists, would be a different topic

If I understand Google's stance, that's what it's about.

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

#600

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #522

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…

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…

Look up WL Gore and Associates. They have thrived on a very different company power structure. Or maybe their founder was right and the power structure wasn't different (he thought official power structures were not where the power was held, and therefore dispensed with them in order for unofficial power structures to more easily come to the fore).

The problem is that you have to have some forms of effort in coordination and there aren't a while lot of models for that in actual practice. There are a few different topologies.

Where I work is becoming more of a traditional company in many ways. But I still look to Gore's insight that the real decisions are made around the water cooler and in the carpool van, and that is helpful.