5 ms·

There was a political rally in Google Campuses in Feb 2017. So, may be you vanilla comments are generally applicable, Google has sort of exempted itself. Now s

There was a political rally in Google Campuses in Feb 2017. So, may be you vanilla comments are generally applicable, Google has sort of exempted itself. Now some people in Google are creating black-lists of colleagues. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-goo...

edynoid 9y ago
That is barely credible given the source is Breitbart.
- cema 9y ago
  An aside note: I have noticed that recently (starting about one year ago) there has been a meme of Breitbart not being a reliable source, while its opposite counterpart Huffington Post does not seem to have this reputation. I wonder if there is a better reason for that than just political disagreement, perhaps there are studies on the relative reliability of different sources (online and offline)? Thanks!
  - edynoid 9y ago
    Admittedly I have not fact-checked a statistically significant sample of their articles. But their Wikipedia article for instance tells a tale of published falsehoods, conspiracy theories and the like. The political disagreement is an orthogonal factor, but does play a role, of course.
    - EJTH 9y ago
      Are you really too lazy to do your own fact checking on a case to case basis instead of relying on these rediculus memes to keep yourself from reading something that might hurt your feel feels?
- jazzyk 9y ago
  If you are alleging that they photo-shopped these screenshots - it would be intellectually honest to present a proof, rather than just smear the source, because you don't like it.
  - edynoid 9y ago
    For the record, I am not alleging this in particular. For all I know, it might be true. Although given Breitbart's history reading anything on that site does not hold much value. After all, they have run stories about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring and continuously deny the scientifically evident reality of climate change, for example.
    - jazzyk 9y ago
      So, using your logic, I assume nothing in the NYT holds much value to you, because they have run stories (without proving any evidence) about "Trump and the prostitutes" in Moscow?
      - MR_FEET 9y ago
        or the sinking of the maine
      - SamBam 9y ago
        Has the NYT ever claimed that Trump met prostitutes in Moscow? Go ahead, find a link saying they have. Did Breitbart push the PizzaGate sex ring story? [Yes](https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552 https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552), [absolutely](https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920 https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920).
        jazzyk 9y ago
        This is off-topic, so very briefly: The NYT published at least two stories about an "unverified" dossier on Trump. Admitting it is unverified, yet they claim: 1. "consequences have been incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day" 2. "By all accounts, Mr. Steele has an excellent reputation" Is it just me, or do they (subtly) suggest that, while "unverified", there may be something to the dossier? If it is unverified (and quite damning), why publish it? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-...
pas 9y ago
That's not "now". People were doing this in these recent years. And it's sort of ... makes sense. You should be allowed to augment your mind with fucking spreadsheets/lists. It's different if a government/company does it.
- throwaway12124 9y ago
  It's not the augmentation method that's the problem. It's the apparent fact that managers/etc at Google are apparently building secret lists of people they won't work with because of ideological reasons. That's both morally awful and quite insubordinate. What should they be doing instead? (1) STFU. (2) Do their jobs. It's called being professional.
  - pas 9y ago
    They are noting who they would rather not work with. That means when they can pick new people for their team(s), they try to pick from those who are not on their shit list. But if their supervisor tells them to work with X, who happens to be on a no-no list, they won't start a hissy fit. (They might try to influence their higher up to reconsider.) And in big corps like google it's not too surprising that people with very different worldviews try to stay away from each other.
    - throwaway12124 9y ago
      "they won't start a hissy fit"? That's not what their comments (in the leaked screenshots) would seem to indicate. On the contrary, they seem ready to go to great lengths, lengths harmful to their employer, to carry out their stated personal policies. At virtually any ordinary company, they'd be fired for this.

edynoid 9y ago

That is barely credible given the source is Breitbart.

cema 9y ago
An aside note: I have noticed that recently (starting about one year ago) there has been a meme of Breitbart not being a reliable source, while its opposite counterpart Huffington Post does not seem to have this reputation. I wonder if there is a better reason for that than just political disagreement, perhaps there are studies on the relative reliability of different sources (online and offline)? Thanks!
- edynoid 9y ago
  Admittedly I have not fact-checked a statistically significant sample of their articles. But their Wikipedia article for instance tells a tale of published falsehoods, conspiracy theories and the like. The political disagreement is an orthogonal factor, but does play a role, of course.
  - EJTH 9y ago
    Are you really too lazy to do your own fact checking on a case to case basis instead of relying on these rediculus memes to keep yourself from reading something that might hurt your feel feels?
jazzyk 9y ago
If you are alleging that they photo-shopped these screenshots - it would be intellectually honest to present a proof, rather than just smear the source, because you don't like it.
- edynoid 9y ago
  For the record, I am not alleging this in particular. For all I know, it might be true. Although given Breitbart's history reading anything on that site does not hold much value. After all, they have run stories about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring and continuously deny the scientifically evident reality of climate change, for example.
  - jazzyk 9y ago
    So, using your logic, I assume nothing in the NYT holds much value to you, because they have run stories (without proving any evidence) about "Trump and the prostitutes" in Moscow?
    - MR_FEET 9y ago
      or the sinking of the maine
    - SamBam 9y ago
      Has the NYT ever claimed that Trump met prostitutes in Moscow? Go ahead, find a link saying they have. Did Breitbart push the PizzaGate sex ring story? [Yes](https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552 https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552), [absolutely](https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920 https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920).
      - jazzyk 9y ago
        This is off-topic, so very briefly: The NYT published at least two stories about an "unverified" dossier on Trump. Admitting it is unverified, yet they claim: 1. "consequences have been incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day" 2. "By all accounts, Mr. Steele has an excellent reputation" Is it just me, or do they (subtly) suggest that, while "unverified", there may be something to the dossier? If it is unverified (and quite damning), why publish it? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-...

pas 9y ago

That's not "now". People were doing this in these recent years. And it's sort of ... makes sense. You should be allowed to augment your mind with fucking spreadsheets/lists. It's different if a government/company does it.

throwaway12124 9y ago
It's not the augmentation method that's the problem. It's the apparent fact that managers/etc at Google are apparently building secret lists of people they won't work with because of ideological reasons. That's both morally awful and quite insubordinate. What should they be doing instead? (1) STFU. (2) Do their jobs. It's called being professional.
- pas 9y ago
  They are noting who they would rather not work with. That means when they can pick new people for their team(s), they try to pick from those who are not on their shit list. But if their supervisor tells them to work with X, who happens to be on a no-no list, they won't start a hissy fit. (They might try to influence their higher up to reconsider.) And in big corps like google it's not too surprising that people with very different worldviews try to stay away from each other.
  - throwaway12124 9y ago
    "they won't start a hissy fit"? That's not what their comments (in the leaked screenshots) would seem to indicate. On the contrary, they seem ready to go to great lengths, lengths harmful to their employer, to carry out their stated personal policies. At virtually any ordinary company, they'd be fired for this.