3 ms·

This seems to be almost completely irrelevant to what is being discussed here - you yourself admit the point you are raising has no particular impact on the mor

This seems to be almost completely irrelevant to what is being discussed here - you yourself admit the point you are raising has no particular impact on the morality of there actions. Also, it is not accurate to say that politics in the US are split 50/50. It is more like closer to 40/30/30[1] 1. http://news.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-inde...

roenxi 8y ago
It is extremely relevant; the original article is literally titled "Google vs. Google: How Nonstop Political Arguments Rule Its Workplace". The thread started with an observation that deciding what is right and wrong is fundamentally a question of "ethics, politics and public policy". If Google is going to be seen as a politically active entity, aligned with the left, then that is a problem. Particularly because aligning with one wing, with high probability, means that Google isn't going to be focused on the good deeds part of politics but on the political campaigning part of politics. That should honestly be a worry to everyone, but particularly the political right. Also 40/30/30 isn't even close to a figure like 61-1. Even if Google were leaning 40/40/20 it would still be markedly biased. I'm from Australia where voting is compulsory, and the undecided 40% usually splits about 20%-20% both ways when made to decide. EDIT I looked it up for your interest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_ele... ) - our most decisive federal-level election was 41.5% to 58.5% on a rough left-right split, aka 2-party-preferred, back in 1931. 55% to 45% would be a landslide in a modern election. America will be different, but realistically I doubt the split would be as bad as 65-35. Probably more like 55-45.

roenxi 8y ago

It is extremely relevant; the original article is literally titled "Google vs. Google: How Nonstop Political Arguments Rule Its Workplace". The thread started with an observation that deciding what is right and wrong is fundamentally a question of "ethics, politics and public policy". If Google is going to be seen as a politically active entity, aligned with the left, then that is a problem. Particularly because aligning with one wing, with high probability, means that Google isn't going to be focused on the good deeds part of politics but on the political campaigning part of politics. That should honestly be a worry to everyone, but particularly the political right. Also 40/30/30 isn't even close to a figure like 61-1. Even if Google were leaning 40/40/20 it would still be markedly biased. I'm from Australia where voting is compulsory, and the undecided 40% usually splits about 20%-20% both ways when made to decide. EDIT I looked it up for your interest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_ele... ) - our most decisive federal-level election was 41.5% to 58.5% on a rough left-right split, aka 2-party-preferred, back in 1931. 55% to 45% would be a landslide in a modern election. America will be different, but realistically I doubt the split would be as bad as 65-35. Probably more like 55-45.