5 ms·

> the video that leaked out [...] of the Google town hall also baffled me Which video?

namdnay 8y ago
I think it was after the US election results, senior leadership was discussing with employees what it could mean for them, and what Google's stance would be. Quite reasonable for a company that is open to diversity to reassure their diverse workforce when a president who is explicitly against diversity is elected. Typical Breitbart trying to create much ado about nothing, I've had similar "town hall" discussions in the UK since Brexit - "what does this mean for our employees? etc"
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  I don't agree that the content of the leaked video[0] was reasonable. Google essentially controls information, so they have tremendous power. Their staff have openly called to subvert democracy, which I think most reasonable people find incredibly dangerous. And no, I don't like Trump. [0]: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl...
  - namdnay 8y ago
    Where did Google leadership call to subvert democracy? At no point in the video do they instruct or encourage employees to do that. They're discussing what Trump means for their employees, not for their customers
    - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
      I said Google staff had, and I didn't say they did that in this video. But then to be fair, I don't have any hard evidence for this. EDIT: As it turns out, sources for this are pretty easy to come across online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-staff-discussed-tweaking-search-results-to-counter-travel-ban-wsj-idUSKCN1M103O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-s...
      - scott_s 8y ago
        This is the main claim: "Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company's search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, the WSJ said. The ideas were not implemented." To me, that is not "subverting democracy." It is, however, taking an active political stance.
        yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
        I respectfully and strongly disagree. A functioning democracy is fundamentally predicated on a well-informed electorate. If the primary source of information is manipulated in the name of political activism, how can they become well-informed? Sadly I must qualify this by saying I don't believe the general public in the West are well-informed, but that doesn't mean that ideal should be given up entirely.
        FireBeyond 8y ago
        From the parent: > show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies From you: > fundamentally predicated on a well-informed electorate Describe how anything in the parent statement fails to contribute to, or detracts from, a well-informed electorate. Both examples are involvement in the functioning of a democracy, not detracting from it. Nor is any private party obligated to provide "equal coverage". That the level of "informed" goes up, but does not encapsulate information -you- think should be included, does not negate this.
        forapurpose 8y ago
        > the WSJ said The WSJ is unabashedly an outlet for conservative and GOP talking points. That is clear on its opinion page, and I know that somehow people trust its news pages, but the same editors control the rest of the publication, as does the owner of the WSJ and Fox News, Rupert Murdoch. I wouldn't trust their summary of something relating to a conservative talking point.
      - jasonlotito 8y ago
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Also from an investing perspective, it’s important to know if the senior leadership turns into a sniveling mess when facing uh...adversity in the form of the political horse they backed losing an election.

I think it was after the US election results, senior leadership was discussing with employees what it could mean for them, and what Google's stance would be. Quite reasonable for a company that is open to diversity to reassure their diverse workforce when a president who is explicitly against diversity is elected. Typical Breitbart trying to create much ado about nothing, I've had similar "town hall" discussions in the UK since Brexit - "what does this mean for our employees? etc"

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
I don't agree that the content of the leaked video[0] was reasonable. Google essentially controls information, so they have tremendous power. Their staff have openly called to subvert democracy, which I think most reasonable people find incredibly dangerous. And no, I don't like Trump. [0]: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl...
- namdnay 8y ago
  Where did Google leadership call to subvert democracy? At no point in the video do they instruct or encourage employees to do that. They're discussing what Trump means for their employees, not for their customers
  - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
    I said Google staff had, and I didn't say they did that in this video. But then to be fair, I don't have any hard evidence for this. EDIT: As it turns out, sources for this are pretty easy to come across online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-staff-discussed-tweaking-search-results-to-counter-travel-ban-wsj-idUSKCN1M103O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-s...
    - scott_s 8y ago
      This is the main claim: "Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company's search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, the WSJ said. The ideas were not implemented." To me, that is not "subverting democracy." It is, however, taking an active political stance.
      - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
        I respectfully and strongly disagree. A functioning democracy is fundamentally predicated on a well-informed electorate. If the primary source of information is manipulated in the name of political activism, how can they become well-informed? Sadly I must qualify this by saying I don't believe the general public in the West are well-informed, but that doesn't mean that ideal should be given up entirely.
        FireBeyond 8y ago
        From the parent: > show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies From you: > fundamentally predicated on a well-informed electorate Describe how anything in the parent statement fails to contribute to, or detracts from, a well-informed electorate. Both examples are involvement in the functioning of a democracy, not detracting from it. Nor is any private party obligated to provide "equal coverage". That the level of "informed" goes up, but does not encapsulate information -you- think should be included, does not negate this.
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        > the WSJ said The WSJ is unabashedly an outlet for conservative and GOP talking points. That is clear on its opinion page, and I know that somehow people trust its news pages, but the same editors control the rest of the publication, as does the owner of the WSJ and Fox News, Rupert Murdoch. I wouldn't trust their summary of something relating to a conservative talking point.
    - jasonlotito 8y ago
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Also from an investing perspective, it’s important to know if the senior leadership turns into a sniveling mess when facing uh...adversity in the form of the political horse they backed losing an election.