3 ms·

There are politically conservative organizations that do not have the baggage of the long history of transparent bad-faith argument that the Heritage Foundation

There are politically conservative organizations that do not have the baggage of the long history of transparent bad-faith argument that the Heritage Foundation has. I think it's fairly reasonable to assert that the quality of any discussion would be improved by removing all representatives of the Heritage Foundation. Moreover, some things are not worth re-litigating. A person who is opposed to same-sex marriage has no place in a discussion of technical ethics.

Aqua 8y ago
> A person who is opposed to same-sex marriage has no place in a discussion of technical ethics. Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population[0] is unworthy of discussing ethics. I find it amusing how Google has become hostage of its own employees in so many aspects. There already have been outrages when it comes to China censorship projects, military projects and now this. It gives Google a lot of bad publicity and I suppose it got out of control. If you think about it, no other company experiences employee revolt to the same degree as Google. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_mar...
- Traster 8y ago
  You say they're hostage to their employees but they've actually appointed someone from the heritage foundation. Conservative politics basically has nothing to offer silicon valley. They don't represent them, they constantly vilify them and their employees as 'liberal coastal elites' and they literally don't have a policy agenda on the issue. Yet somehow they get invited in as a leader in this area. That sounds a lot more like Google is hostage to outside political interests than their employees' political interests.
- tzs 8y ago
  > Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population is unworthy of discussing ethics? I'm having trouble thinking of any unethical action that would not have a good chance of being approved by 30% of the population except perhaps where the unethical action would cause such widespread and apparent harm that it would directly affect a majority.
repolfx 8y ago
But Googlers have developed a track record of objecting in relatively extreme ways to anything even remotely conservative, to the extent that a guy who wrote a memo literally about that exact problem, was fired because he gave an example of a topic on which Google was biased and they couldn't handle it. No, I'm absolutely sure that any conservative person or organisation at all would be targeted in exactly the same way. There are so many examples by now. Especially because Bay Area liberals seem to regard anything that isn't hyper-left wing as "bad faith arguments" by "white supremacists" and "Nazis". The idea Google could host an ethics board on anything at all is quite ridiculous at this point. Pichai would need to get a grip on his own workforce, something he is apparently incapable of.
frozenlettuce 8y ago
Someone like Brendan Eich would have much to add to the discussion

Aqua 8y ago

> A person who is opposed to same-sex marriage has no place in a discussion of technical ethics. Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population[0] is unworthy of discussing ethics. I find it amusing how Google has become hostage of its own employees in so many aspects. There already have been outrages when it comes to China censorship projects, military projects and now this. It gives Google a lot of bad publicity and I suppose it got out of control. If you think about it, no other company experiences employee revolt to the same degree as Google. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_mar...

Traster 8y ago
You say they're hostage to their employees but they've actually appointed someone from the heritage foundation. Conservative politics basically has nothing to offer silicon valley. They don't represent them, they constantly vilify them and their employees as 'liberal coastal elites' and they literally don't have a policy agenda on the issue. Yet somehow they get invited in as a leader in this area. That sounds a lot more like Google is hostage to outside political interests than their employees' political interests.
tzs 8y ago
> Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population is unworthy of discussing ethics? I'm having trouble thinking of any unethical action that would not have a good chance of being approved by 30% of the population except perhaps where the unethical action would cause such widespread and apparent harm that it would directly affect a majority.

repolfx 8y ago

But Googlers have developed a track record of objecting in relatively extreme ways to anything even remotely conservative, to the extent that a guy who wrote a memo literally about that exact problem, was fired because he gave an example of a topic on which Google was biased and they couldn't handle it. No, I'm absolutely sure that any conservative person or organisation at all would be targeted in exactly the same way. There are so many examples by now. Especially because Bay Area liberals seem to regard anything that isn't hyper-left wing as "bad faith arguments" by "white supremacists" and "Nazis". The idea Google could host an ethics board on anything at all is quite ridiculous at this point. Pichai would need to get a grip on his own workforce, something he is apparently incapable of.

frozenlettuce 8y ago

Someone like Brendan Eich would have much to add to the discussion