4 ms·

Giridharadas talk is explosive in terms of its ideas. From what I can tell, he's not pulling any punches even though he's been invited to speak on a Google camp

Giridharadas talk is explosive in terms of its ideas. From what I can tell, he's not pulling any punches even though he's been invited to speak on a Google campus (Boston). At 29:03 Giridharadas challenges his audience to demand that Google (and other Silicon Valley companies) generate an annual political disclosure to its employees, the very people in his audience. [0] As a side note, Giridharadas is very clear and measured in his articulation, and I found that speeding the video to 1.5 times normal rate to be a good delivery speed (YMMV). What Giridharadas says prior to the timecode I referenced is also provocative and politically risky. I can't yet comment on his entire talk, but the quality of the first half the video is superb. [0] https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM?t=1743 https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM?t=1743

pjc50 8y ago
> generate an annual political disclosure to its employees Even disclosing to their employees who they're giving money to as campaign contributions would be a start. At the moment they have to find this out from @pinboard: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256 https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256 It's one thing to issue a statement supporting LGBT+ rights (cost: $0) but donating $5000 to a Republican candidate is a much more significant action in terms of making the world worse for trans people.
- justicezyx 8y ago
  > issue a statement supporting That statement needs multiple hours of writing from VP level approval etc. The cost is not 0.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- marknutter 8y ago
  They donate to Democratic candidates at roughly the same rate. Does that counterbalance the harm done to trans people?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    That raises more questions than it answers; are they donating to both sides of the same race, or just candidates in different locations? For what purpose? Is this kind of "guilt offset" valid, can you just buy off harm while continuing to do it?
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      Simpler possibility: they're donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise regardless of party affiliation because that's how rent seeking and regulatory capture works?
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Right - they're donating to help Google, not to help or harm trans people. They're a business, not an activist non-profit. But I think it's more proactive than "donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise". I think it's more like "donating so that the candidate will support legislation (not just one piece!) favorable to Google as an enterprise". That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive. Google wants politicians to like Google before they're deciding which legislation to support.
        dvtrn 8y ago
        That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive. I'm definitely willing to concede that in many cases it's a little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B. Probably.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Political donations are public record. Opensecrets.org
- nradov 8y ago
  Most large companies spread their donations around to every major candidate or incumbent politician. They frequently bet on both sides of the race. This is just a matter of buying access so that they have a seat at the table and can possibly call in a favor later. The only solution would be comprehensive campaign finance reform. And due to Supreme Court precedent that would probably require a Constitutional amendment (not likely to happen).
mark_l_watson 8y ago
I totally agree, he brings up things that challenge my ‘priors’ and shifted my views - in a 1 hour talk. Excellent talk. Two comments: I think it showed real fairness invited him to give a talk at Google; someone probably read his book and wanted to promote change within. The second comment is trivial: watching this talk reminds me that arguably the best perk when I worked at Google as a contractor was the invited talks (yes, even better than the food: I can buy my own food but hearing very interesting people talk in person is an experience more difficult to buy).
fouc 8y ago
I agree about watching it at 1.5x speed. Even slightly faster would be nice. Definitely a lot of food for thought. The question & answer near the end was fantastic, I loved hearing the Googlers responding positively and talking about taking action.

pjc50 8y ago

> generate an annual political disclosure to its employees Even disclosing to their employees who they're giving money to as campaign contributions would be a start. At the moment they have to find this out from @pinboard: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256 https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256 It's one thing to issue a statement supporting LGBT+ rights (cost: $0) but donating $5000 to a Republican candidate is a much more significant action in terms of making the world worse for trans people.

justicezyx 8y ago
> issue a statement supporting That statement needs multiple hours of writing from VP level approval etc. The cost is not 0.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
marknutter 8y ago
They donate to Democratic candidates at roughly the same rate. Does that counterbalance the harm done to trans people?
- pjc50 8y ago
  That raises more questions than it answers; are they donating to both sides of the same race, or just candidates in different locations? For what purpose? Is this kind of "guilt offset" valid, can you just buy off harm while continuing to do it?
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Simpler possibility: they're donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise regardless of party affiliation because that's how rent seeking and regulatory capture works?
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Right - they're donating to help Google, not to help or harm trans people. They're a business, not an activist non-profit. But I think it's more proactive than "donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise". I think it's more like "donating so that the candidate will support legislation (not just one piece!) favorable to Google as an enterprise". That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive. Google wants politicians to like Google before they're deciding which legislation to support.
      - dvtrn 8y ago
        That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive. I'm definitely willing to concede that in many cases it's a little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B. Probably.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Political donations are public record. Opensecrets.org
nradov 8y ago
Most large companies spread their donations around to every major candidate or incumbent politician. They frequently bet on both sides of the race. This is just a matter of buying access so that they have a seat at the table and can possibly call in a favor later. The only solution would be comprehensive campaign finance reform. And due to Supreme Court precedent that would probably require a Constitutional amendment (not likely to happen).

mark_l_watson 8y ago

I totally agree, he brings up things that challenge my ‘priors’ and shifted my views - in a 1 hour talk. Excellent talk. Two comments: I think it showed real fairness invited him to give a talk at Google; someone probably read his book and wanted to promote change within. The second comment is trivial: watching this talk reminds me that arguably the best perk when I worked at Google as a contractor was the invited talks (yes, even better than the food: I can buy my own food but hearing very interesting people talk in person is an experience more difficult to buy).

fouc 8y ago

I agree about watching it at 1.5x speed. Even slightly faster would be nice. Definitely a lot of food for thought. The question & answer near the end was fantastic, I loved hearing the Googlers responding positively and talking about taking action.