4 ms·

Loyalty to a super powerful organization whose only goal is more power and whose loyalty to you only extends as far as they can make money using you is a fool’s

Loyalty to a super powerful organization whose only goal is more power and whose loyalty to you only extends as far as they can make money using you is a fool’s game. The person who feels like inciting mob hate towards someone who is telling truth to power is the same person found in all of the worst movements of destruction across the world and throughout history.

gsnedders 8y ago
While you might not owe the company loyalty, one can imagine being scornful towards those who might get rid of the openness within the company because it makes it harder to collectively oppose actions the company is taking (or talking about taking).
- humanrebar 8y ago
  The Damore thing was basically leak of an internal conversation that was considered justified. Maybe the leaker thought the convention was arbitrary anyway.
kemonocode 8y ago
It's less of a matter of loyalty towards Google and more of a matter of hubris from the leaker(s) and the people they've been working with. That's why people are angry. Had they not gotten so brazen as to put up in real time what was being said in the meeting, I'm sure the reaction would have been different. Of course, the powers to be at Google took the chance to turn sympathy towards themselves and are going to use it as an excuse from now on to be a tad less candid in these meetings.
- orionblastar 8y ago
  I remember way back when Apple had to fire people for leaking stuff to the news. Osborne had a problem like that had a new model being invented and someone leaked it so nobody bought the current model to fuel money to build the new model. Leaks can break a company.
Guvante 8y ago
How can you be transparent about your plans if everything is leaked? The court of public opinion tends to not be reasonable and often things that people would get upset about can be corrected via internal discussions.
- thesagan 8y ago
  Well... being transparent makes leaks ok. Otherwise the discussion is private and/or not transparent. (Or at least not intended to be transparent.) Private discussions are usually not be transparent, otherwise the public court will judge. If Google wants to discuss sensitive issues at an "all hands meeting" then it better be prepared for leaks, otherwise they should stick to smoke filled rooms.
  - Guvante 8y ago
    Different definition of transparency. I was talking within the organization. You can as a company allow information to flow within without it flowing out to the general public and this can be useful but it requires cooperation. > then it better be prepared for leaks Leaking something that was brought up questioned and resolved in a negative way is one thing. In contrast this was just live tweeting everything said. Bringing up complicated topics and having an honest discussion is hard when the whole of the internet is your judge.
parent5446 8y ago
Don't fool yourself. Google isn't some sort of cult. It's just common decency. One of the big reasons listed is that employees wanted to hear more about the China project, but it was cut short because of the leaker.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Apologies to Voltaire or whoever, but "common $x is not so common."
sureaboutthis 8y ago
This isn't about loyalty. It's about trust. And trust has been violated. Now one starts questioning the person they're sitting next to and a whole culture can be in upheaval.
- bodas 8y ago
  Not trust but naïveté. You should trust your wife. There's no way you can or should trust thousands of coworkers.
  - rmrfrmrf 8y ago
    > Can't speak to spouse about work under NDA > See coworkers more often than spouse The results will shock you!
labbyz 8y ago
ACM Code of Ethics: Do no harm > A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation. The irony is that the previous leak (which detailed a harmful IT system) was the cause of this very meeting (Googlers wanted to know more about the project they read about on HackerNews/The Intercept). Without that earlier leak, upper management wouldn't be forced to organize this open meeting. Though, I can fully understand getting angry and wanting to signal support. What this new leak made clear is that the supposed culture of openness at Google is a farce: "Brin reportedly denied having knowledge of the program until after news leaked and what Brin described as "this kerfuffle" erupted." So even one of the CEO's was left in the dark.

gsnedders 8y ago

While you might not owe the company loyalty, one can imagine being scornful towards those who might get rid of the openness within the company because it makes it harder to collectively oppose actions the company is taking (or talking about taking).

humanrebar 8y ago
The Damore thing was basically leak of an internal conversation that was considered justified. Maybe the leaker thought the convention was arbitrary anyway.

kemonocode 8y ago

It's less of a matter of loyalty towards Google and more of a matter of hubris from the leaker(s) and the people they've been working with. That's why people are angry. Had they not gotten so brazen as to put up in real time what was being said in the meeting, I'm sure the reaction would have been different. Of course, the powers to be at Google took the chance to turn sympathy towards themselves and are going to use it as an excuse from now on to be a tad less candid in these meetings.

orionblastar 8y ago
I remember way back when Apple had to fire people for leaking stuff to the news. Osborne had a problem like that had a new model being invented and someone leaked it so nobody bought the current model to fuel money to build the new model. Leaks can break a company.

Guvante 8y ago

How can you be transparent about your plans if everything is leaked? The court of public opinion tends to not be reasonable and often things that people would get upset about can be corrected via internal discussions.

thesagan 8y ago
Well... being transparent makes leaks ok. Otherwise the discussion is private and/or not transparent. (Or at least not intended to be transparent.) Private discussions are usually not be transparent, otherwise the public court will judge. If Google wants to discuss sensitive issues at an "all hands meeting" then it better be prepared for leaks, otherwise they should stick to smoke filled rooms.
- Guvante 8y ago
  Different definition of transparency. I was talking within the organization. You can as a company allow information to flow within without it flowing out to the general public and this can be useful but it requires cooperation. > then it better be prepared for leaks Leaking something that was brought up questioned and resolved in a negative way is one thing. In contrast this was just live tweeting everything said. Bringing up complicated topics and having an honest discussion is hard when the whole of the internet is your judge.

parent5446 8y ago

Don't fool yourself. Google isn't some sort of cult. It's just common decency. One of the big reasons listed is that employees wanted to hear more about the China project, but it was cut short because of the leaker.

rhizome 8y ago
Apologies to Voltaire or whoever, but "common $x is not so common."

sureaboutthis 8y ago

This isn't about loyalty. It's about trust. And trust has been violated. Now one starts questioning the person they're sitting next to and a whole culture can be in upheaval.

bodas 8y ago
Not trust but naïveté. You should trust your wife. There's no way you can or should trust thousands of coworkers.
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  > Can't speak to spouse about work under NDA > See coworkers more often than spouse The results will shock you!

labbyz 8y ago

ACM Code of Ethics: Do no harm > A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation. The irony is that the previous leak (which detailed a harmful IT system) was the cause of this very meeting (Googlers wanted to know more about the project they read about on HackerNews/The Intercept). Without that earlier leak, upper management wouldn't be forced to organize this open meeting. Though, I can fully understand getting angry and wanting to signal support. What this new leak made clear is that the supposed culture of openness at Google is a farce: "Brin reportedly denied having knowledge of the program until after news leaked and what Brin described as "this kerfuffle" erupted." So even one of the CEO's was left in the dark.