5 ms·

It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas. It appears that there

by bb101 8y ago

It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas. It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google.

lucideer 8y ago
While this statement is definitely true, in this instance, it comes across as some sort of apology for Google—as if the vast majority of their other activities are benign and this is a glaring exception. This is the norm.—the wonderful things some Google employees produce are the exception.
TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including campaigning, branding, and marketing to say that you're NOT all about profit. In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with the real goal: maximizing the success of the company, as measured by profits. When viewed through this lens, these actions do not conflict. In fact, BOTH are REQUIRED. These only APPEAR to conflict when you think that top leadership actually REALLY cares about anything other than money, and the influence it brings.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  What could a company like Google do to convince you that this isn't the case, if it truly isn't the way you imagine for that company? Because it sounds like there isn't anything.
  - slickbuntu 8y ago
    There really is no other credible argument that they could give. Business must grow, if they don't they die. It's predatory no doubt, and Google certainly can't be considered an honest broker. But this dichotomy is necessary in today's hysterical environment that social media has created. It sucks.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      "Other"? What is the first credible argument they could give? You can't accuse someone of something for which you would never accept anything as evidence in their defense.
    - rexpop 8y ago
      > Business must grow, if they don't they die. Perhaps re-labeling major (and unprecedented) communication/organization platforms from "businesses" to something akin to "utilities"—or, more radically, "platform coops"—would quash such apologia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative
  - rexpop 8y ago
    Capitulate constantly to their Workers' demands, converting their authoritarian management hierarchy into a worker-led cooperative, buying back their stock and issuing it to their users.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    Not engage in this kind of actions would be a start. Not building weapons, not lying to people...
  - topynate 8y ago
    The comment you're replying to is hot-blooded, but your question has a simple answer nonetheless. Sergei Brin stands in front of the "activist employees" at an all-hands and tells them that he strongly disagrees with some of their political beliefs, and that while they're welcome to advocate for them, those beliefs will find little purchase so long as he remains president of Alphabet. But that's not how he runs that company -- which is the point.
  - asdff 8y ago
    Not retaliating at workers. Not being in the business of more efficient murder. Not paying smart people a lot of money to ensure as little profit possible goes towards public use.
- slickbuntu 8y ago
  The Game. This sounds right on.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  Spot on. Companies know very well how to appear ethical to the public eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing is an example.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas The e-mails referenced in the article were unsolicited policy preferences communicated by a multi-billion dollar company to a regulator in writing. These communications were sent following a PR and HR crisis. The chances that this didn't have high-level sign-off is virtually zero.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  This is basically fact free. First, you have the timing wrong. " In filings in May 2017 " IE before a PR and HR crisis or whatever you want to call it. Second, it was solicited, as they were written as a legal response to a legal claim. Third, claiming that expresses a policy preference is silly. Do you believe that criminal defense attorneys express a policy preference that say, murder is okay? If you go and read the actual filing, and other filings, here's an actual fact for you: Google is literally making the same defense that others before the NLRB are. So if you want the outrage, i suggest you direct it at everyone. Like, i can find filings from various "loved" open source companies that make the same argument, etc.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > you have the timing wrong. " In filings in May 2017 Conceded. Pardon me--cannot edit the original comment. > it was solicited, as they were written as a legal response to a legal claim Do we know these filings were in response to a legal claim? It could have been in response to something more frivolous. (I am having trouble finding the filing.) > Do you believe that criminal defense attorneys express a policy preference that say, murder is okay? One, this isn't a criminal matter. It isn't even being judicially decided. These are confidential regulatory proceedings. Two, when criminal defense attorneys defend a murder suspect, they don't advocate overturning murder statute. There is a wide berth between arguing against the facts and circumstances of a case and arguing for overturning a law. Three, I've been in senior roles at companies in regulatory deliberations and litigation. Each time, company counsel briefed senior management on the arguments they were preparing. More than once, someone asked if an argument was essential. Once, it was. (It was maintained.) Another time, it wasn't. Concerned about a client relationship getting caught in the cross-fire, the argument was dropped and the case amended. When you give a shit about a constituency, you don't argue for overturning their rights.
rjf72 8y ago
I would never judge a company based on their words. Most corporations spend immense amounts of money on public relations firms, and these firms are pretty decent at their job. And words can be faked - lies, deception. If you want to see what a company truly is judge them by their actions, particularly ones that are not obvious PR efforts. Google in recent times: - looking to move into China and create a censored search engine blocking offensive search terms like "human rights" [1] - the above search engine would also tie users' searches to their phone numbers for ease of tracking - tracking users' location on phones when tracking was set to disabled (we're back to everywhere - not just China on this one) - looking to implement change that would disable most ad-blockers - lobbying the government restrict employees' rights to organize against it And this is just a list of things from the past several months. It is seriously not comprehensive. No, I think Google has quite a clear agenda, a great PR department, and a whole bunch of people in cognitive dissonance who want to believe the PR rather than acknowledge what they're taking part in. --- edit : Added a source for first point. It's borderline unbelievable, but it was not rhetorical. Human rights (in Mandarin of course) was literally on Google's black list of terms. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/ https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-l...
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Funny detail, it turns out the complaints were filed against conservative ex-googlers alleging that they were discriminated against by the progressive activist majority inside Google. The people filing NRLB complaints probably disagree with you about the morality of all your bullet points above, and they're claiming they were discriminated against for disagreeing with the consensus. I wonder if that changes progressives' opinions on the topic?
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Not my opinion. These rules are in place for the good of all workers. We need to hold on to what power we have, the right not to be retaliated against for attempting to organize being one of the most basic.
thisisit 8y ago
> It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google. So what you saying is that two departments in a big company can have their own attorneys and/or publicists and approach government agencies on their own without a higher approval?
C1sc0cat 8y ago
Possibly maybe Google /Alphabet needs a new GC and HR Director
romanovcode 8y ago
I don't believe it even for one second. It is clear that they are trying to be seen in public as a good guys when in fact they are not.
topspin 8y ago
> It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google. Perhaps, but when then chips are down and Google is obliged to file their position on pain of perjury it is clear which 'vision' is real and which is window dressing.
contravariant 8y ago
What matter is what Google ends up doing. The fact that Google also has employees with a different ideology is irrelevant if those aren't in control.

by bb101 8y ago

It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas. It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google.

lucideer 8y ago

While this statement is definitely true, in this instance, it comes across as some sort of apology for Google—as if the vast majority of their other activities are benign and this is a glaring exception. This is the norm.—the wonderful things some Google employees produce are the exception.

TheRealDunkirk 8y ago

No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including campaigning, branding, and marketing to say that you're NOT all about profit. In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with the real goal: maximizing the success of the company, as measured by profits. When viewed through this lens, these actions do not conflict. In fact, BOTH are REQUIRED. These only APPEAR to conflict when you think that top leadership actually REALLY cares about anything other than money, and the influence it brings.

mehrdadn 8y ago
What could a company like Google do to convince you that this isn't the case, if it truly isn't the way you imagine for that company? Because it sounds like there isn't anything.
- slickbuntu 8y ago
  There really is no other credible argument that they could give. Business must grow, if they don't they die. It's predatory no doubt, and Google certainly can't be considered an honest broker. But this dichotomy is necessary in today's hysterical environment that social media has created. It sucks.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    "Other"? What is the first credible argument they could give? You can't accuse someone of something for which you would never accept anything as evidence in their defense.
  - rexpop 8y ago
    > Business must grow, if they don't they die. Perhaps re-labeling major (and unprecedented) communication/organization platforms from "businesses" to something akin to "utilities"—or, more radically, "platform coops"—would quash such apologia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative
- rexpop 8y ago
  Capitulate constantly to their Workers' demands, converting their authoritarian management hierarchy into a worker-led cooperative, buying back their stock and issuing it to their users.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  Not engage in this kind of actions would be a start. Not building weapons, not lying to people...
- topynate 8y ago
  The comment you're replying to is hot-blooded, but your question has a simple answer nonetheless. Sergei Brin stands in front of the "activist employees" at an all-hands and tells them that he strongly disagrees with some of their political beliefs, and that while they're welcome to advocate for them, those beliefs will find little purchase so long as he remains president of Alphabet. But that's not how he runs that company -- which is the point.
- asdff 8y ago
  Not retaliating at workers. Not being in the business of more efficient murder. Not paying smart people a lot of money to ensure as little profit possible goes towards public use.
slickbuntu 8y ago
The Game. This sounds right on.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
Spot on. Companies know very well how to appear ethical to the public eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing is an example.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas The e-mails referenced in the article were unsolicited policy preferences communicated by a multi-billion dollar company to a regulator in writing. These communications were sent following a PR and HR crisis. The chances that this didn't have high-level sign-off is virtually zero.

DannyBee 8y ago
This is basically fact free. First, you have the timing wrong. " In filings in May 2017 " IE before a PR and HR crisis or whatever you want to call it. Second, it was solicited, as they were written as a legal response to a legal claim. Third, claiming that expresses a policy preference is silly. Do you believe that criminal defense attorneys express a policy preference that say, murder is okay? If you go and read the actual filing, and other filings, here's an actual fact for you: Google is literally making the same defense that others before the NLRB are. So if you want the outrage, i suggest you direct it at everyone. Like, i can find filings from various "loved" open source companies that make the same argument, etc.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > you have the timing wrong. " In filings in May 2017 Conceded. Pardon me--cannot edit the original comment. > it was solicited, as they were written as a legal response to a legal claim Do we know these filings were in response to a legal claim? It could have been in response to something more frivolous. (I am having trouble finding the filing.) > Do you believe that criminal defense attorneys express a policy preference that say, murder is okay? One, this isn't a criminal matter. It isn't even being judicially decided. These are confidential regulatory proceedings. Two, when criminal defense attorneys defend a murder suspect, they don't advocate overturning murder statute. There is a wide berth between arguing against the facts and circumstances of a case and arguing for overturning a law. Three, I've been in senior roles at companies in regulatory deliberations and litigation. Each time, company counsel briefed senior management on the arguments they were preparing. More than once, someone asked if an argument was essential. Once, it was. (It was maintained.) Another time, it wasn't. Concerned about a client relationship getting caught in the cross-fire, the argument was dropped and the case amended. When you give a shit about a constituency, you don't argue for overturning their rights.

rjf72 8y ago

I would never judge a company based on their words. Most corporations spend immense amounts of money on public relations firms, and these firms are pretty decent at their job. And words can be faked - lies, deception. If you want to see what a company truly is judge them by their actions, particularly ones that are not obvious PR efforts. Google in recent times: - looking to move into China and create a censored search engine blocking offensive search terms like "human rights" [1] - the above search engine would also tie users' searches to their phone numbers for ease of tracking - tracking users' location on phones when tracking was set to disabled (we're back to everywhere - not just China on this one) - looking to implement change that would disable most ad-blockers - lobbying the government restrict employees' rights to organize against it And this is just a list of things from the past several months. It is seriously not comprehensive. No, I think Google has quite a clear agenda, a great PR department, and a whole bunch of people in cognitive dissonance who want to believe the PR rather than acknowledge what they're taking part in. --- edit : Added a source for first point. It's borderline unbelievable, but it was not rhetorical. Human rights (in Mandarin of course) was literally on Google's black list of terms. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/ https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-l...

yourbandsucks 8y ago
Funny detail, it turns out the complaints were filed against conservative ex-googlers alleging that they were discriminated against by the progressive activist majority inside Google. The people filing NRLB complaints probably disagree with you about the morality of all your bullet points above, and they're claiming they were discriminated against for disagreeing with the consensus. I wonder if that changes progressives' opinions on the topic?
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Not my opinion. These rules are in place for the good of all workers. We need to hold on to what power we have, the right not to be retaliated against for attempting to organize being one of the most basic.

thisisit 8y ago

> It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google. So what you saying is that two departments in a big company can have their own attorneys and/or publicists and approach government agencies on their own without a higher approval?

C1sc0cat 8y ago

Possibly maybe Google /Alphabet needs a new GC and HR Director

romanovcode 8y ago

I don't believe it even for one second. It is clear that they are trying to be seen in public as a good guys when in fact they are not.

topspin 8y ago

> It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google. Perhaps, but when then chips are down and Google is obliged to file their position on pain of perjury it is clear which 'vision' is real and which is window dressing.

contravariant 8y ago

What matter is what Google ends up doing. The fact that Google also has employees with a different ideology is irrelevant if those aren't in control.