5 ms·

Questions for insiders: - Does Google have unusually many conservative employees compared to similar tech companies? Or maybe a different attitude towards "div

Questions for insiders: - Does Google have unusually many conservative employees compared to similar tech companies? Or maybe a different attitude towards "diversity" programs? - Evidence of Google employees doxing one another is evidence of insufficient HR vigilance against assholes. How could it happen? - Does the "alt-right" have specific reasons to harass Google, compared to other equally hostile and equally important companies?

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I suspect the difference is cultural: Google has actively advocated for people to debate controversial political issues at work. Political discussion groups of various types exist on corporate resources, politics is discussed in company meetings, and politically active individuals have been brought in to speak at Google talks. "Talks at Google" literally has a featured category for it: https://talksat.withgoogle.com/explore/categories/politics https://talksat.withgoogle.com/explore/categories/politics I work in a pretty political environment, where both significantly liberal and significantly conservative views exist. They're rarely discussed, and it rarely is an issue, because it's not a work-related discussion.
- hilariousthrow 9y ago
  I've opened your link and "Featured Talk" is guess by who? Senator Hillary Clinton! That's truly hilarious. Don't bring politics at work, they say.
daxorid 9y ago
> Does the "alt-right" have specific reasons to harass Google I can think of one, aside from the Damore fiasco. Last year, Google, as a domain name registrar, took an inherently political position in clientHolding a fascist website's domain name - and doing no such thing to any of its overtly communist customers. Prior to the Godaddy/Google decisions, domains were generally only subject to action of this kind in the case of FBI/DHS/ICE seizures or egregious network abuse (spam, botnet c2, etc). This action set the precedent, for the first time, that denying access to your own domain names (clientHold prevents you from even transferring your domain to another registrar) on the basis of political disagreement is a perfectly acceptable action on the part of one of the largest infrastructure providers on the planet.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  This is really unacceptable. It would be better for everybody if companies stayed neutral and would let law enforcement deal with abuses. What stops them from putting a clientHold on a domain not for political but commerical reasons. We really don't want companies to act as cops.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    Is it really better that way? Have you read through some of the business practices during WWII? Americans almost directly funding the German war effort by moving money around for their own capitalist benefit. I think the subject requires are more in-depth analysis than "companies shouldn't get to say who's business they want".
    - slededit 9y ago
      For the beginning years of the war the US was technically neutral. It would have been seen as an act of war for the government to stop its citizens from trading with the Germans.
      - 52-6F-62 9y ago
        We weren't talking about the government, though. We were talking about a company deciding to act with less ambiguity toward certain political groups/forces— like the example with Google above. For example, it might have been considered better taste after the issuance of the Nuremberg Laws for Coca Cola not to associate so closely with the German Reich and fly their banners next to the swastika at the Berlin games, but that certainly was not the play until they were forced to stop (which ultimately resulted in the invention of Fanta, but I digress). --- An additional sampling of a company just being apolitical in questionable taste. >> Mark Prendergrast "In March of 1938, as Hitler's troops stormed across the Austrian border in the Anschluss, Max Keith convened the ninth annual concessionaire convention, with 1,500 people in attendance. Behind the main table, a huge banner proclaimed in German, "Coca -Cola is the world-famous trademark for the unique product of Coca-Cola GmbH" Directly below, three gigantic swastikas stood out, black on red. At the main table, Max Keith sat surrounded by his deputies, another swastika draped in front of him...The meeting closed with a "ceremonial pledge to Coca-Cola and a ringing three-fold "Seig Heil" to Hitler." At another convention Mark Prendergrast notes "Then Keith ordered a mass Sieg-Heil for Hitler's recent fiftieth birthday, to commemorate our deepest admiration and gratitude for our Fuhrer who has led our nation into a brilliant higher sphere."... At the Reich "Schaffendes Volk" ("Working People") Exhibition celebrating the German worker under Hitler, Prendergrast describes "A functioning bottling plant, with a miniature train carting Kinder beneath, bottled Coca-Cola at the very centre of the fair, adjacent to the Propaganda Office. Touring the Dusseldorf fair, Hermann Goering paused for a Coke, and an alert Company photographer snapped a picture. Though no such picture documented the Fuhrer's tastes, Hitler reputedly enjoyed Coca Cola too, sipping the Atlanta drink as he watched Gone With The Wind in his private theatre." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203586.For_God_Country_Coca_Cola https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203586.For_God_Country_C...

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

I suspect the difference is cultural: Google has actively advocated for people to debate controversial political issues at work. Political discussion groups of various types exist on corporate resources, politics is discussed in company meetings, and politically active individuals have been brought in to speak at Google talks. "Talks at Google" literally has a featured category for it: https://talksat.withgoogle.com/explore/categories/politics https://talksat.withgoogle.com/explore/categories/politics I work in a pretty political environment, where both significantly liberal and significantly conservative views exist. They're rarely discussed, and it rarely is an issue, because it's not a work-related discussion.

hilariousthrow 9y ago
I've opened your link and "Featured Talk" is guess by who? Senator Hillary Clinton! That's truly hilarious. Don't bring politics at work, they say.

daxorid 9y ago

> Does the "alt-right" have specific reasons to harass Google I can think of one, aside from the Damore fiasco. Last year, Google, as a domain name registrar, took an inherently political position in clientHolding a fascist website's domain name - and doing no such thing to any of its overtly communist customers. Prior to the Godaddy/Google decisions, domains were generally only subject to action of this kind in the case of FBI/DHS/ICE seizures or egregious network abuse (spam, botnet c2, etc). This action set the precedent, for the first time, that denying access to your own domain names (clientHold prevents you from even transferring your domain to another registrar) on the basis of political disagreement is a perfectly acceptable action on the part of one of the largest infrastructure providers on the planet.

maxxxxx 9y ago
This is really unacceptable. It would be better for everybody if companies stayed neutral and would let law enforcement deal with abuses. What stops them from putting a clientHold on a domain not for political but commerical reasons. We really don't want companies to act as cops.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  Is it really better that way? Have you read through some of the business practices during WWII? Americans almost directly funding the German war effort by moving money around for their own capitalist benefit. I think the subject requires are more in-depth analysis than "companies shouldn't get to say who's business they want".
  - slededit 9y ago
    For the beginning years of the war the US was technically neutral. It would have been seen as an act of war for the government to stop its citizens from trading with the Germans.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      We weren't talking about the government, though. We were talking about a company deciding to act with less ambiguity toward certain political groups/forces— like the example with Google above. For example, it might have been considered better taste after the issuance of the Nuremberg Laws for Coca Cola not to associate so closely with the German Reich and fly their banners next to the swastika at the Berlin games, but that certainly was not the play until they were forced to stop (which ultimately resulted in the invention of Fanta, but I digress). --- An additional sampling of a company just being apolitical in questionable taste. >> Mark Prendergrast "In March of 1938, as Hitler's troops stormed across the Austrian border in the Anschluss, Max Keith convened the ninth annual concessionaire convention, with 1,500 people in attendance. Behind the main table, a huge banner proclaimed in German, "Coca -Cola is the world-famous trademark for the unique product of Coca-Cola GmbH" Directly below, three gigantic swastikas stood out, black on red. At the main table, Max Keith sat surrounded by his deputies, another swastika draped in front of him...The meeting closed with a "ceremonial pledge to Coca-Cola and a ringing three-fold "Seig Heil" to Hitler." At another convention Mark Prendergrast notes "Then Keith ordered a mass Sieg-Heil for Hitler's recent fiftieth birthday, to commemorate our deepest admiration and gratitude for our Fuhrer who has led our nation into a brilliant higher sphere."... At the Reich "Schaffendes Volk" ("Working People") Exhibition celebrating the German worker under Hitler, Prendergrast describes "A functioning bottling plant, with a miniature train carting Kinder beneath, bottled Coca-Cola at the very centre of the fair, adjacent to the Propaganda Office. Touring the Dusseldorf fair, Hermann Goering paused for a Coke, and an alert Company photographer snapped a picture. Though no such picture documented the Fuhrer's tastes, Hitler reputedly enjoyed Coca Cola too, sipping the Atlanta drink as he watched Gone With The Wind in his private theatre." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203586.For_God_Country_Coca_Cola https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203586.For_God_Country_C...