6 ms·

By firing the employee, Google is sending a strong signal that they will not tolerate a diversity of opinions. That does not bode well for them, for a restrict

By firing the employee, Google is sending a strong signal that they will not tolerate a diversity of opinions. That does not bode well for them, for a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive.

onion2k 9y ago
a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive So what? This action might be damaging to Google's bottom line (I doubt it) but that's actually less important that running a company in the way the overwhelming majority of employees want it to be run. To use an ad absurdum argument - if it could be demonstrated that people who are openly racist write better code I still wouldn't believe Google should hire them.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  I've already covered the "So what?". I explained what I think the consequences are likely to be, and why I think that.
- stormking 9y ago
  What makes you so sure that it's an "overwhelming majority of employees"?
mattnewton 9y ago
Actually I think you have it backwards. By not firing him, they would have done too little to distance the Google brand from the manifesto (and worse, people's third and fourth hand readings of the manifesto). That would cost them more potential and current engineers short term and certainly devalue the consumer brand more than sending a message that company wide memos like that aren't tolerated. They can't just take this sitting down.
conradfr 9y ago
Google has enough money to survive everything for decades. It may not be the case for smaller companies that love to copy what they do.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > Google has enough money to survive everything for decades. How much money they have, and how long it'd be possible to survive on that, is not relevant to the point I was making.
Daishiman 9y ago
It sends a strong signal to strong female candidates that this type of garbage discourse will not be allowed. Most people consider that to be a plus.

onion2k 9y ago

a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive So what? This action might be damaging to Google's bottom line (I doubt it) but that's actually less important that running a company in the way the overwhelming majority of employees want it to be run. To use an ad absurdum argument - if it could be demonstrated that people who are openly racist write better code I still wouldn't believe Google should hire them.

jamesrcole 9y ago
I've already covered the "So what?". I explained what I think the consequences are likely to be, and why I think that.
stormking 9y ago
What makes you so sure that it's an "overwhelming majority of employees"?

mattnewton 9y ago

Actually I think you have it backwards. By not firing him, they would have done too little to distance the Google brand from the manifesto (and worse, people's third and fourth hand readings of the manifesto). That would cost them more potential and current engineers short term and certainly devalue the consumer brand more than sending a message that company wide memos like that aren't tolerated. They can't just take this sitting down.

conradfr 9y ago

Google has enough money to survive everything for decades. It may not be the case for smaller companies that love to copy what they do.

jamesrcole 9y ago
> Google has enough money to survive everything for decades. How much money they have, and how long it'd be possible to survive on that, is not relevant to the point I was making.

Daishiman 9y ago

It sends a strong signal to strong female candidates that this type of garbage discourse will not be allowed. Most people consider that to be a plus.