41 ms·
Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore
- SirensOfTitan 7y agoI try to just do work at work, but to play contrarian: If one agrees with Aristotle in that: "Man is by nature a political animal," the cultural acceptance of no politics at work seems almost nefarious. Most of us spend more time at work than perhaps any other activity, barring sleep. One could perhaps even hypothesize that without some political discussion at work, people exclusively talk with friends who share their political opinions, causing larger lateralization of political thought.
- TheGRS 7y agoThere is also a shared understanding that you don't debate politics with family, which would also be a pretty big block of time for many. Perhaps the forum isn't the problem, its that a good deal of people feel uncomfortable with politics and choose to not engage. I guess what's pretty funny here is we all have a shared understanding that there are problems in politics and the cultural landscape, but also there's a lot of common sense that keeping your feelings bottled up isn't good for anyone.
- dekhn 7y agoI feel like Google should have started their orientation with a link to jwz's rba gruntle (not linking because HN people hate what his referral headers redirect does). The lawyer in that article is now an SVP of Legal at Google.
- ProAm 7y ago> what his referral headers redirect does What's it do, first time Ive heard of that
- mieseratte 7y agoDisplay some kind of sketchy image (I think it was a hairy ballsack?) and a mild rant hating on the HN crowd.
- yters 7y agoSo once China starts to violently crack down on Hong Kong protesters, is Google going to hide it all?
- stevenalowe 7y agoHow about we do our jobs instead? Yes please!
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kranner 7y agoHow about judging us on our performance at our jobs then, and not treating us as children?
- scarface74 7y agoIn most professional settings, it’s considered a norm not to talk about sex, politics, and religion unless your business is dealing with one of those areas specifically.
- Dobbs 7y agoThis is wonderful when your very existence isn’t political. So cis het white men. For the rest of us we don’t have this luxury. This is the pinnacle example of white and male privilege.
- anoncake 7y ago> So cis het white men What are you complaining about? Clearly you don't mind racism and sexism.
- simplecomplex 7y agoWhat forces a homosexual black man into talking about politics at work? Could you give an example ?
- daenz 7y agoI know a couple of non-white/cis/het/male developers who are able to behave like mature, goal-oriented adults and do stellar work. It's not a luxury, it's called being professional.
- moresocialism 7y agoThe problem is that what constitutes politics? Guns shouldn't be political, who you have sex with shouldn't be political...but in our current climate, they are both considered political. ..and no debating? Most people at Google are shades of left. It sounds like they are just trying to drown out dissenting views once again.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago> Guns shouldn't be political Guns are power, power is political.
- frenchyatwork 7y agoBy that standard, most interesting work is political.
- freewilly1040 7y agoPaywall, but I'd bet this is mostly about forums/Slack/email and not about in person conversations. I think the problem is that mass communication tools being used at biggish companies and up do not foster productive conversations about controversial topics. Trolling scales too well.
- zarkov99 7y agoNo shit. I guess Google can no longer assume that there is a single correct world view that all good and smart people hold. Who knew.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y agoMaybe they just can't no longer assume that they can get away with it and prevent leaks about their practices from becoming public.
- pgeorgi 7y ago> prevent leaks about their practices from becoming public Google is a company that provides gyms, cooking classes, non-work discussion forums, extensive cafeteria service, massages and so on and so on to make sure employees are living within the company as much as possible. But discussions on such random forums don't reflect company practice just as the gyms don't exist to make every employee a professional marathon runner in Team Google. Since the forums became quite the distraction, there are more rules about them now. I'd fully expect gyms to be limited or shut down if they had adverse effects on the workplace, too. (Disclosure: I work at Google, but the above is my very own, personal, slightly cynical take on the company)
- umanwizard 7y ago> Google is a company that provides gyms, cooking classes, non-work discussion forums, extensive cafeteria service, massages and so on and so on to make sure employees are living within the company as much as possible. I would argue these perks exist because they are what top tech workers can command in the market, not because of some nefarious purpose of wanting people to work longer hours. Sort of like how MLB players have all kinds of nice perks written into their bargaining agreement like always flying first class, etc.
- ryacko 7y agoIt could be worse, they could allow employees to sleep in trucks or cars in the parking lot...
- huffmsa 7y agoNo debate, just get in line.
- ixtli 7y agoA good employee is a quiet employee.
- paulddraper 7y agoAgreed. Goes for coworkers too.
- taurath 7y agoWhy shouldn’t employees of the company with the goal of organizing all the worlds information debate politics? Everything is political. Especially information.
- BurningFrog 7y agoBecause they have work to do. That's why they're there.
- arcticbull 7y agoTheir job is to create a forum for others to debate, and to try and maintain neutrality. Their own politics aren't necessarily relevant. Everyone wants to be able to have their political opinions, try and convince others, and not get fired. It's kind of a pick-2 situation. Feel free to bring politics in with ya so long as you embrace the philosophy that you can say anything you want on your last day.
- root_axis 7y ago> Their job is to create a forum for others to debate, and to try and maintain neutrality What? Says who?
- arcticbull 7y agoOthers as in not their employees. Google indexes all the worlds information, who says their goal is to impose their opinion on it? Isn't neutrality in indexing the assumption?
- Nevermindmine 7y agoWhy would you assume that?
- cameronbrown 7y agoSpeaking for myself here. Yes and no. Ranking by definition means not being neutral, it's just that society has decided that it's acceptable to rank spam lower than other content. Neutrality looks a lot like bias from the perspective of spammers. When you're dealing with more complex signals at scale there are so many second and third order effects that are hard or impossible to predict. For example, the conservative bias everyone's talking about doesn't seem to me to be literal bias against the right, but bias in favour of mainstream news sources which are overwhelmingly left-wing. I'm sure there are many issues in Search like the one I just described, and being able to have these conversations is what makes it possible for Googlers to spot these issues, decide if it's even an issue and fix it. If you ban a certain type of conversation, you'll change how people think about a potential issue.
- arcticbull 7y agoI think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. That's kinda natural once you reach a certain size and your colleagues may as well be randos on the street. To be fair, that's a learning most businesses stumbled upon decades ago, it's the new generation of "re-invent management" companies that are speedrunning HR policy.
- taneq 7y agoTime to re-read "I can tolerate anybody except my out-group."
- bsamuels 7y agoThat article is all I can think about whenever these political problems come up at Google. Here's a link for anyone interested: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... I don't recommend reading it unless you can tackle the entire thing though
- bargl 7y ago>But the best thing that could happen to this post is that it makes a lot of people, especially myself, figure out how to be more tolerant. Not in the “of course I’m tolerant, why shouldn’t I be?” sense of the Emperor in Part I. But in the sense of “being tolerant makes me see red, makes me sweat blood, but darn it I am going to be tolerant anyway.” Wow. Yeah. Being accepting and loving is hard. It's one of the hardest things you can do, but only if that person is part of your out group.
- doitLP 7y agoI think they overestimated just how willing certain people are to not do their jobs and sit around arguing while being paid.
- michaelt 7y ago
- mullingitover 7y agoDon't debate politics, but please contribute to our corporate PAC that supports some of the worst politicians.
- theplague42 7y agoWhich politicians?
- ceejayoz 7y agoAs an example: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1120320958382755840 https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1120320958382755840 @Pinboard has collected a bunch of these. https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apinboard%20PAC https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apinboard%20PAC
- dunkelheit 7y agoThe sums in question are for some reason ridiculously small. Seriously, $2500 donation? That is some serious political spending from Google!
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt's remarkable how little it takes to get on the radar of a Congressional representative.
- idlewords 7y agoThe donations are capped by law at $5,000 per candidate+election (so typically a corporate PAC can give $10,000 to a congressional or senate candidate). The amounts are not as important as the fact that Google's name is attached to them. But I agree with you that the overall figure is tiny, which makes it more mysterious why Google continues to make these donations, which amount to legalized bribery. IBM and Apple do fine without a corporate PAC. Microsoft suspended its own PAC after strong internal pressure from employees over donations to some of the same terrible people.
- 7y ago
- sergiotapia 7y agoMonkey has shit the bed already though hasn't it. I never had the need to discuss politics at work. Just don't do it, why open that can of worms. Absolutely no need to do so. One time a coworker asked me and I said "I don't discuss politics at work". Be professional, people.
- daenz 7y ago>One time a coworker asked me and I said "I don't discuss politics at work". These days, even that is seen as taking a side. People get suspicious when you don't join in with the group political affirmations, and start suspecting you to be a secret "other." That's how toxic it's become.
- sergiotapia 7y agoI'm latino so I at least have some shielding against that bullshit.
- mieseratte 7y agoOnce had a coworker out of left-field start telling me how one should be free to assault someone based on the arbitrary assessment of their speech being "harmful." This coworker wrongly assumed I would agree with them, and was rather taken aback when I shutdown the conversation as opposed to expressing my agreement. Now you've gone and run the risk of creating a hostile working environment. Why people feel this is a sane mode of being is beyond me.
- anoncake 7y agoOf course there is a need to discuss politics. It isn't a separate thing that can be divorced from what it's about, i.e. everything. That includes work.
- mieseratte 7y ago> It isn't a separate thing that can be divorced from what it's about, i.e. everything. I'm having a hard time finding politics in: "Hey $COWORKER, how's that REST endpoint coming along?"
- baby 7y agoI'm not at Google but my guess is that the number of Chinese employees and the current protests in HongKong might create some internal political fights.
- rolltiide 7y agoExactly, the relationship with China is way more fractious and important. Very unlikely triggered by domestic US opinions as almost nothing will affect their relationship with the US (specifically because there is no consolidation of single-party power), so people debating “stretch goals” in advancing US inclusion and US civil rights doesn't really change anything. If you know “how to America” then you know how to take advantage of anyone in charge and it doesn't matter how divided the country is. But Hyper-patriotic Chinese employees dealing with US ideology towards China certainly would change things. Its not so different than vocally disagreeing with Israel’s “foreign” policy and expecting to still remain employed anywhere. Not gonna happen! You have to recognize who the masters are or who they are beholden to.
- mullingitover 7y agoBeing from China, which bans Google, while working at Google and arguing in favor of China's policies toward Hong Kong must make for some severe cognitive dissonance.
- skybrian 7y agoNot just being from there. Google has offices in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Taipei, among others. [1] But I expect the China offices are pretty well firewalled off for security reasons. [1] https://careers.google.com/locations/ https://careers.google.com/locations/
- umanwizard 7y agoAs far as I know Google isn't banned in China; it's just blocked. In the sense that there are no legal consequences for using a VPN to get around the firewall. I could be wrong but this is my understanding.
- 7y ago
- dev_dull 7y agoI expect them to loosely categorize politics, while still encouraging open corporate discussion of LGBTQ, racial, and other such issues. People may have different opinions about that.
- big_chungus 7y ago"I expect them to block most things, but still allow things I care about but which the "other side" doesn't regard as serious issues." Fixed that for you. No one is the sole arbiter of what is "important", so I've usually found just not discussing to be the best solution at work.
- t0astbread 7y agoBut you can't tell people not to talk about anything anymore at work.
- TheGRS 7y agoTelling people to stop talking about politics because one don't feel like the discussion is important or productive can be viewed as its own form of covert political discourse. "The status quo is fine, I'm doing fine, discussion to the contrary hurts my worldview".
- big_chungus 7y agoExactly. Every one regards his issues as too important to be merely political. My point is many people don't agree with your interpretation of what ought to be allowed/banned, and you've presented no reason why those issues in particular ought to be discussed. Again, my best solution is to just avoid talking politics at work.
- TheGRS 7y agoDiscrimination in the workplace and society is a perfectly valid reason for talking about politics at work.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoBig tech and hiring practices and internet privacy and google itself are political topics this election cycle. Should googlers not talk debate about tech and hiring and privacy and google?
- stretchwithme 7y agoSo, wait. The focus will being on getting work done? That'll never work.
- JustSomeNobody 7y agoTalk about work at work. If you meet someone at work who you think you want to be friends with, invite them for coffee before work and talk about non-work stuff then. But at work, just talk about work.
- Analemma_ 7y agoI think this was inevitable in the long run. From the very beginning, Google has tried to have the atmosphere of a college campus rather than a normal workplace, probably (at least in the early days before every tech company started doing this) to help them stand out among job applicants as an alternative to stuffier companies. The thing is though, professional work environments (where there are typically norms around never discussing politics) are the way they are for a reason. Just like Bitcoiners are rediscovering why finance regulations exist, Google is rediscovering why the cool, relaxed workplace ends up causing more problems than it solves.
- anoncake 7y ago> The thing is though, professional work environments (where there are typically norms around never discussing politics) are the way they are for a reason. The reason is the same as for not talking about salary at work: To prevent workers from developing class consciousness.
- nullc 7y agoThat's just a 'bonus'. We don't talk about politics or religion at work for the same reason that we use money instead of barter. If we only used barter we could only trade when we could find matching goods/services between trading partners, by using money instead we avoid the matching. If you discuss politics at work you risk a situation where some people cannot work together because of incompatible views which are essentially irrelevant to the work being performed.
- anoncake 7y agoOn the contrary: Politics have to be discussed at work because that's where "incompatible" people meet. Discussing politics with those who share your views isn't all that enlightning. The work being performed is generally completely irrelevant compared to politics so it has to take a backseat. The capitalist will just have to deal with the fact that their workers are not mindless unpolitical drones.
- daenz 7y agoIt's almost as if embracing "the personal is political" makes people feel morally obligated and virtuous for airing every half baked and divisive political opinion. And now they want to put the genie back in the bottle? Far too late.
- rubberstock 7y agoSince this is google, it is getting interesting: >organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law
- carapace 7y agoThe internal codebase at Google is organized like a bazaar.
- webwielder2 7y agoIt's funny how we pigeonhole "things that actually matter" as "politics" and that those things are somehow taboo. I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?
- gtirloni 7y agoAt work? A lot of other things.
- abeisgreat 7y agoNot if your work directly impacts these things as Google's often does.
- the-pigeon 7y agoFor profit companies should not choose sides. Google's only discussion of politics in the workplace should be on how to make their systems be as unbiased as possible.
- damnyou 7y agoThe problem with statements like this is that not choosing sides is exactly as political as choosing sides. There is no such thing as ignoring politics — it's an essential part of the human experience, so any organization must grapple with it.
- SkyBelow 7y ago>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much less respect, the second is itself a form of disrespect. Now, that is a pretty extreme view for today's society but good for making an example with. It is also not too far off from many views that I have personally seen, especially when you begin to imagine the legal changes involved to implement those views.
- nailer 7y ago> For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. Do you think that's a good example of the kind of things Google staff debate about?
- SkyBelow 7y agoI tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic, while at the same time not being something people here would actually debate, so as to not sidetrack the point.
- nailer 7y ago> I tried to pick an example that is both held by people in the world today, thus it couldn't be easily dismissed as unrealistic It is very easy to dismiss a "death to homosexuals" discussion among Google employees as unrealistic. > so as to not sidetrack the point. Hrm, I understand that logic, but it seems like an attempt to frame disagreement with the current popular political view in the most extreme way. Maybe that's not what you intended, but since that is a commonly employed technique ("everyone who doesn't disagree with me is a nazi") it does seem that way.
- defen 7y ago
- wtdata 7y agoI am under the impression it was never a debate to start with. A debate implies that both sides are allowed to speak their arguments, yet, Google was actively shutting down and firing people that defended one of the sides.
- papito 7y agoIt's a basic "work for hire" contract between two parties. No other employer will tolerate this. If you don't like it - quit and write a blog post.
- skybrian 7y agoWell, no, many jobs are much more complicated than that. Honestly, a contractor relationship where you are taking orders from one person and only have to worry about what they think is refreshingly simple compared to working in a highly collaborative environment. For example, at Google, your manager is one person whose opinions are important, but things like promotions also depend heavily on peer review and your general reputation.
- kwillets 7y agoAnd there I was hoping they would solve all the world's problems from their campus in Mountain View.
- rhacker 7y agoI fully expect their next product to enable our webcam, take pictures of us naked all the time, threaten us with blackmail that they will post it on the internet, unless we buy YouTube Premium, and somehow all of it will be "agreed to" ahead of time by their privacy policy. And because politics are non-discussable, no employee will be able to stop this.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gwbas1c 7y agoEver since the infamous "diversity memo," (which I disagree with,) I've gotten the impression that political discussions at Google turned toxic. A well run company includes people with diverse political views points. A workplace that's hostile to anyone who leans right or leans left ultimately hurts diversity.
- nailer 7y agoMost of the memo was citations of studies of sex differences. People can either agree with the studies or disagree with the research used (it's totally cool with me if you do disagree with the research), but the idea that someone should be punished for talking about research at a company that extols "data driven decision making" as one of it's principles baffles me.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gwbas1c 7y agoThe memo made some very poignant points, but then the author expressed some strange opinions that I would never attempt to defend. (Even worse, there was no reason to put some of these opinions in the memo.) But what's more scary is Google's official response to the diversity memo. (For context, Google instituted certain hiring policies to increase diversity, which the "diversity memo" questioned.) If you have the time, I suggest that you go reread the diversity memo and Google's response. Try to read them without taking sides. (It's hard.)
- manfredo 7y agoI read the memo before reading the media coverage. I was very surprised at how controversial it was. It's claims were pretty modest: it did not claim that women were any less capable than men at technology, and it repeatedly stated that innate differences likely do not account for all of the disparity between men and women in tech. All it argued was that just because a disparity exists we should not assume that it is evidence of discrimination, and that policies designed to engineer an outcome closer to 50/50 are likely creating discrimination rather than reducing it.
- banachtarski 7y agoTo be honest though, I've never been a fan of discussing politics at the workplace.
- somesortofsystm 7y agoI really have to wonder: do Google engineers google for things when they can't work out a solution to their problem? Because honestly, all you need to do, in order to form a perfect political opinion, is google for it. No further effort required.
- quotemstr 7y agoWhat's remarkable is how the media narrative surrounding this rule change seems to suggest that it's a bad thing, while the popular response is overwhelmingly positive. I've yet to see one of these articles quote someone who isn't an internal activist or present the perspective of any employee who likes the change.
- ashwinaj 7y agoFinally common sense prevails! Get to work on time, eat your free lunch, work, go home. To those of you who disagree; if you want to "make a difference" take a cue from Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther king Jr. etc. Mahama Gandhi didn't work for the East India company while simultaneously fighting for freedom. If you are serious about it put your money where your mouth is and stop being empty vessels.
- major505 7y agoMarting Luther King would give up if he witnesed the current political debate.
- skybrian 7y agoThis insistence on purity seems kind of naive and unsympathetic. I assume real history is more complicated. Do you really think there weren't blacks fighting for civil rights while working for racists?
- mieseratte 7y ago> This insistence on purity seems kind of naive and unsympathetic. Considering the Google social-justice crowd is playing the moral purity game, I would assume they would strive for purity.
- ashwinaj 7y agoYou can nitpick. But I'm pretty certain most, if not all, African Americans who worked for racists were fired if they found out that they were part of the civil rights movement. As Jordan Peterson says, clean up your room before you go fixing the world. Go up from Shoreline towards 101 and see the number of homeless people; what exactly are these enlightened Googlers doing for them other than ignoring them and driving away with their expensive Maserati's, Tesla's etc. and complaining about how expensive it is to live in the bay area. How about NIMBY laws? The list goes on and on..
- TheGRS 7y agoI have a feeling that many of the activists who were just protesters alongside those big names didn't quit their jobs to pursue of lifetime of pure activism. I'm not sure why having a job precludes you from being political.
- paulhodge 7y agoOne of the their core values is "don't be evil", isn't that statement inherently political? I think a lot of people chose to work at Google (instead of say Oracle or etc) because of those ideals. Kinda disingenuous to advertise that reputation and then switch to a policy of "actually shut up and do the work".
- idlewords 7y agoThat "core value" was removed some time ago.
- tehjoker 7y agoIt was ok until it started impacting the business... Like when the workers prevented the sale of AI technology to the people droning wedding parties in the Middle East. Yawn.
- tehjoker 7y agoBy the way googlers, consider joining a union! The man can't take away your rights if you fight back collectively!
- simplecomplex 7y agoGreat. Professional adults don’t talk about heated issues at work when it is not necessary. For obvious reasons.
- oppositelock 7y agoI worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the majority engaged in heckling, ridicule, etc. It was already becoming an echo chamber, and as the majority grew, their tactics grew more petty and vicious. However, this was expected in the politics groups, and you knowingly entered that fray. What seems to be happening a lot lately is that politics are spilling over into large, global mailing lists which target a whole geographic region, so many people get involved, and when a company has 200k employees and contractors, you will find some outliers in there who will pick nasty fights. It only makes sense that they're cutting down on something that has turned toxic. It's a bit disappointing to hear, since I personally enjoyed the occasional, honest discussion with smart people of other viewpoints - these good discussions made the much larger number of ridiculous ones, bearable.
- duxup 7y agoHelp me out here. Do you mean "internal political" as "Oh man Jimmy is in charge of gmail now!" (just a made up example of internal politics there) or "Can you belive what the POTUS did!?!?!"? If the latter, I'm a bit surprised ... I can't imagine having that kind of conversation at work. That is absolutely a NO GO zone for me at work.
- username90 7y agoIt is the second kind, and in addition to the multitude of dedicated political discussion boards it is also very popular at the social forums like memegen and google plus. I was a bit shocked by this when I started but I got used to it, now I just filter it out.
- lreeves 7y agoI understand your perspective but I'm honestly very surprised given your example. I'm in Canada and the things Trump does and says are still present in conversations nearly every day.
- twblalock 7y agoGood. Work should not be a debating society.
- dmix 7y agoA small group of people always ruin these things for everyone else. ie, the people who can't handle politics and think the worlds constantly on fire so they think they're justified in ignoring social grace and time/place taboos. The internet news machines have generated many thousands of these people. I feel like they are becoming more popular and giving even less of a shit that other people don't want to be forced to listen to their politics at work or in other forced proximity environments. And then there's the people who judge you for not talking or 'resisting', as if not being politically engaged is equivalent to supporting the 'other side'. Then there's the overly-excited drunken political rants at parties, that's when they really let loose! /rant
- Reedx 7y agoThe Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority "It suffices for an intransigent minority – a certain type of intransigent minorities – to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority." [1] That effect and illusion has really been amplified with Twitter and how the news media uses a handful of those loud voices as though they're the dominant or established opinion. Combine that with the fact that the most intolerant don't budge, while the majority is flexible. 1) https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- rollinDyno 7y agoI hear you, but have you considered that the world's actually on fire? Perhaps you wouldn't notice because you don't live in the Amazon. I don't mean that seriously, but it does serve a point. How can you tell if people are just ranting "because of the internet" and not because they are suffering and think your political inaction is contributing to their pains? Because of your comment I will try to be more cautious about people complaining as they might just be attention grabbers but it's also dangerous to fully ignore them because it makes us uncomfortable. We should be grateful people rant to one another, because it means we still believe we can help ourselves. If this was a dictatorship we were living in there would be no point in complaining to the neighbours.
- draw_down 7y agoI think it's fine for an employer to dictate this, I certainly never want to debate politics or encounter others doing that at work. But it's not fine if the company wants employees to "bring their whole selves to work", as I understand Google does. I think the very concept is misguided; I don't think people should be expected to bring "their whole selves to work". But if that's what an employer wants, then they should expect to get exactly that.
- didip 7y agoI bet majority of Google employees are taking a deep sigh of relief now. It must be suffocating being surrounded with political talks at work when one is trying to do their job well.
- skybrian 7y agoI left a few years ago, but it was more like internal politics was a fascinating addiction that some people are better than others at ignoring. Sort of like reading Hacker News. I wonder if memegen is shut down yet?
- panda88888 7y agoMemegen is alive. Leadership team still need it for their all hands slides. XD
- wonnage 7y agoConservative Americans don't want politics at work, or on the football field, or at family dinners, or...anywhere else that isn't officially sanctioned. Sounds like China to me.
- topspin 7y ago"Sounds like China to me." Sounds like the diametric opposite of China to me. China is actively injecting politics into every aspect of life through, for example, Social Credit[1], which is merely a more systematized method of political control than what has been employed since the communist revolution. Millions of "discredited entities" are being denied the ability to travel, for instance. [1] https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/1162212515708731392/ https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/11622125157087313...
- ixtli 7y agoMeanwhile, google shuts down more than 200 youtube channels that criticize the hong kong protests. (N.B.: I do not oppose them, im just pointing out how hilariously hypocritical it is for an organization at the center of global politics to be telling its employees not to debate politics.)
- madrox 7y agoWhere I grew up, the saying went "there are three things you don't talk about in polite company: money, religion, and politics." Where I used to work, I found out someone I worked with a lot didn't support gay marriage. I had a really hard time working with them after that. Maybe this is the inevitable outcome of trying to make work a social hub. It's great to say that we should be able to discuss anything with anyone, but the reality is that we're not all perfectly mature people and we can't handle it.
- t0astbread 7y agoJudging from the comments there are basically two stereotypes of people in this discussion: 1) The people who "just want to do their work". While they might care about the ramifications of what they're doing they don't think about it actively while working on it 2) The people who care A LOT about their ethics and try to respect them in whatever they do I guess both sides are important and the way Google phrased these new rules doesn't seem to exclude either side but "banning politics at work" surely isn't good for type #2 and, by extension, the company at large.
- refurb 7y agoYou're mischaracterizing the first group. If it's relevant to the work you're doing, then politics is fine. If's not, keep it to yourself.
- t0astbread 7y agoI would've categorized those people as type #2. People who constantly talk about totally irrelevant topics (no matter if political or not) I would've just regarded as "chatty".
- kerng 7y agoGoogle itself is pretty political, just look at their Doodles. So, this will be interesting to watch.
- munk-a 7y agoFrom the other side - if the world is on fire but a portion of the population thinks everything is just fine and dandy... is it appropriate for everyone to be politely quite until that portion comes to their own realization that the world is on fire? What if that never happens? I feel like the gun control debate is particularly relevant - whenever a shooting happens one side calmly says "This is unfortunate but unavoidable given the cost to freedom we'd need to pay to remove firearms - please stop trying to use a tragedy politically" while the other side says "How many times does this need to happen before you realize 12,000 Americans died from this last year and I don't want my kid to be one of them." Here's an issue where I think half the side thinks the world is on fire and the other is content - without getting into the merits of either side I do think it's unreasonable for the anti-gun control side to continue to argue against having a discussion for the sake of decorum. This is a divide we need to resolve.
- FakeComments 7y agoNo one pro-gun is refusing a discussion: they’re refusing emotional manipulation, whereby you use dead children as totems for emotional impact, but fail to discuss the actual costs and facts. As you’ve done here. “I’m emotional about something that might happen to my child, look at these dead kids!” while refusing to address their point — guns used for self defense and civil freedom — isn’t having a discussion, and isn’t a way to reason about a complex trade off in society. It’s using dead children as a grotesque banner for your emotional manipulation. Maybe if you want a discussion, try having one?
- cookiecaper 7y ago> This is a divide we need to resolve. The question is how much of that needs to be hammered out at work. Part of the problem may be that we've tied the workplace so intimately into our lives that it's cramming out activities vital to the civilization's health, like participation in local civic, religious, or charitable organizations, where such topics are generally not only welcome but often the rasion d'etre. Employees have a very understandable impulse to do something to influence social health for good, and if work becomes the only place where such an impulse can feel effectively fulfilled, it's no surprise that political discussion spills over irrespective of management dicta. Rather than decreeing political discussion off-limits, maybe Google could consider something like reorienting and/or resurrecting 20% time to focus on allowing employees to effectively practice good citizenship, rather than using that time to generate new IP for Google to hoard.
- coldtea 7y agoOf course Google doesn't want staff debating politics at work. It can lead to this: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/27/18114285/google-employee-china-censorship-protest-project-dragonfly-search-engine-letter https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/27/18114285/google-employee... or this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-pentagon/google-drops-out-of-bidding-for-10-billion-pentagon-data-deal-idUSKCN1MI2BZ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-pentagon/... How is a company expected to make a buck if they have to suffer ethical considerations? The salaried workthings should just do what they're told...
- notadoc 7y agoWhat's wrong with that? Work is for working, is it not?
- sequoia 7y ago> Some employees have used internal chat boards to rally other workers against some Google projects, helping push the company to end work on a censored search engine for the Chinese market and an artificial intelligence contract for the U.S. military. Oh. So they don't care about bullying or alienating people with unpopular political views, they're upset that employees are questioning their material support of antidemocratic governments. For a second I thought they were actually making something close to a good ethical choice here, I see I was mistaken.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- halis 7y agoI agree with Google. Don't discuss politics or religion at work. It's not a good look.
- devy 7y agoThis article makes it seem like debating politics is a good practices in workplace. It is NOT! Talking politics in workplace is not professional - different political opinions can wreck marriages, it can certainly wreck your job too! Just think about what if your boss is having a completely different political opinions than what you belief. Also any major corporations leaning one side of the political party would immediately alienate the other half the political spectrum and may risk losing businesses who believe in the opposition political parties.
- einhverfr 7y agoIn the EU, freedom from discrimination on the basis of political opinion is considered a fundamental right, and is mentioned as such in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Private conversations about politics thus is entirely outside the scope of what the company is allowed to care about. Public comments, for example on global email lists, would be a different topic.
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoSo, how does protesting google's self-censorship to get into China count as political, and should it be banned?
- santo_bob 7y agoThis isn't new. In 2011, a bunch of right-wingers (people we'd recognize as fascists) got one of the smartest people in tech burned out of Google in 6 months. They did whatever they could for years to ruin his career and may still being doing it. Executives stood by and let it happen. This is not a new tension.
- neonate 7y agohttp://archive.is/xtfde http://archive.is/xtfde
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- buboard 7y ago> disrupting the workday to have a raging debate over politics or the latest news story does not, Why do googlers engage in this at work? They don't feel their political conversations deserve a wider audience? Or do they feel the wider audience does not deserve their political conversations ?
- nullc 7y agoI wonder if this has anything to do with the recently leaked posts that shows google staff used the google search front end to target specific demographics they expected to vote for a particular candidate and then were shocked and upset when a substantial minority portion of those populations voted for different candidates? If discussions are leading to credible allegations that a company was promoting candidates using their marketing resources in violation of campaign finance laws, it would be easy to understand why they might want to get those discussions offline.
- rdtsc 7y ago> I wonder if this has anything to do with the recently leaked posts that shows google staff used the google search front end to target specific demographics they expected to vote for a particular candidate and then were shocked and upset when a substantial minority portion of those populations voted for different candidates? That's my thought. It sounds that the discussions were always inflamed and lively. But why the change now, right after all that stuff came out? I suspect they are afraid of more leakers, and are afraid of lawsuits which would trigger discovery and then all the internal politics will get dump out.
- joshuamorton 7y agoCould you link to the evidence of that, because I think you'll find that upon even a cursory investigation, it doesn't exist.
- nullc 7y agoI could, but the google leaked documents have been aggressively removed from any site I've seen them posted on (HN, reddit, etc.) presumably under (BS) legal threat from google. If you give me an email address, I'll send you links privately.
- joshuamorton 7y agoI'm <user>@google.com, among others. I presume your talking about one of the two leaks via veritas. Those don't say what you claim they do. I also expect your assumptions about legal threats are wrong. But such claims are easy to make sans evidence, and they do feel good.
- Causality1 7y agoOk, so are senior executives going to follow that rule? One recalls the transcript from the all-hands meeting after the 2016 election where Sergey Brin said “Most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad, “I find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of you do too. It’s a stressful time, and it conflicts with many of our values. I think it’s a good time to reflect on that. ... So many people apparently don’t share the values that we have.” and in doing so put a target on the back of every centrist and conservative at Google.
- magduf 7y agoThis is pretty strange to me. I've worked in a bunch of very different places, including Intel Corp. and also defense contractors and US government installations, and people generally stayed away from political discussions unless they were around people they already knew were like-minded. The only place I saw political discussion turn really sour was at Intel when we had a contractor who was extremely religious and conservative, and would talk publicly about how homosexuals "offended" him, etc. We ended up not renewing his contract because he was toxic. At government places, political discussions were generally avoided. The Hatch Act might have something to do with that (it's illegal to campaign for any political candidate at a Federal workplace), but mostly I think people just had good common sense. They did talk a little among themselves in the run-up to the election, but it was in-person, with a buddy, not meant to be a public discussion. What's really shocking to me here is this revelation that there's actually "global mailing lists" within the company where political talk is happening. This, I cannot imagine ever seeing at any of my prior employers, ever. I honestly can't imagine why any company would tolerate such a use of its equipment this way. It's just a recipe for trouble.
- amyjess 7y ago> What's really shocking to me here is this revelation that there's actually "global mailing lists" within the company where political talk is happening. This, I cannot imagine ever seeing at any of my prior employers, ever. I honestly can't imagine why any company would tolerate such a use of its equipment this way. It's just a recipe for trouble. I agree. My company has a "no politics" rule spelled out in the employee handbook, and that's worked out really well. At most, some of us will have private, in-person, one-on-one conversations about politics, which is fine because it doesn't drag in anyone who doesn't want to be there. The off-topic channels on our Slack consist of memes, jokes, and chat about movies and video games, plus the occasional bit of tech news. It's a pretty pleasant place because of the no politics rule.
- MFLoon 7y agoJust the existence of any kind of active, noisy global mailing lists seems like an indicator of organizational immaturity, let alone ones catering to political discussion.
- ineedasername 7y agoAvoiding topics that are not work related and are likely to make a large group of co-workers angry seems like an obvious, professional thing to do, regardless of the specific policies of the workplace.
- Zelphyr 7y agoThe Freemasons figured this out over a century ago to good effect.
- Zelphyr 7y agoI’m not sure why this is getting downvoted. As a Freemason myself I find the ban on discussion of politics and religion while in lodge refreshing. It’s an important facet of the craft that helps us view each other as equals.
- fortran77 7y agoThis is an eye opener. > [Google] employees discussed at length [on internal message boards] whether Trump’s win meant it’s time for a violent revolution. “How do people cope with this?” one employee wrote. “I’ve never been part of a military or war effort before. … I don’t know how useful I’ll be.” It's about time Google tells people to take their political revolution talk somewhere else other than company internal discussion boards! https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/ https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james...
- ed312 7y agoAlso, that's just plain old sedition because you don't like who won the democratic election.
- einhverfr 7y agoIt is protected discussion under the US Constitution since Yates v. United States hamstrung sedition prosecutions over the government going after dissidents, particularly Communists. Mind you I sat the last election out because I was so thoroughly disgusted with Hillary's anti-immigrant record and Trump's promise to try to be even worse (and while he is trying, I am not sure he is succeeding as bad as it is, and it is very bad). I have no love for either. But it is protected speech.
- wilg 7y agoWhy would you sit out the election instead of voting for the option you know is better?
- einhverfr 7y agoBecause to vote for someone defending PRWORA would be a betrayal of what my family went through. It was at that point vote third party or stay home. I think if I had it to do over again I would vote third party.
- hendersoon 7y agoI don't blame them. Even aside from the President and GOP media machine attacking them for anti-conservative bias, Why would you want people to talk politics at work in the first place? At work you should be working. Argue about politics on your own time. (He said, posting from work.) And the difference is my employer doesn't host Hacker News. I'm posting on my own recognizance.
- dudus 7y agoThey are right. It's ridicule that it has to come to this. Debate politics in your personal time. There's already too much shit keeping people from their workstations (massages, free food, ...)
- Tehchops 7y agoI think, inevitably, the saying about work not being a good forum for discussing: - religion - politics - sex still holds true, regardless of how progressive the workplace.
- starpilot 7y agoThis is the norm at most companies right? Like Microsoft etc.? Whether de factor or de iuro, politics is usually left at home unless it's personal conversations among close colleagues.
- tareqak 7y agoIf Google did get split up, maybe the baby Googles could keep their open culture? Update: I realize that this comment appears sarcastic and ill-meaning, but the top ranked post on HN is about " Deconstructing Google’s excuses on tracking protection" as of this moment (Friday, August 23, 2019 2:25 PM PDT) [0]. If we take the following together: 1. the open culture at Google as a known good quantity for some of the people who like to work there and keep working there 2. each of the products and services that Google offers today as respective known good quantities 3. The aggregate of Google's influence with respect to how the products and services in 2. sometimes has negative impacts on the marketplace. 4. The size of Google causes the open culture in 1. to start being a hindrance to Google itself. Then it seems obvious to me that the size and breadth of Google is the problem. I genuinely mean all of this in good-faith. If Google stayed small, then maybe services like Google Reader could still be around because the gap between cost and benefit would not have been as wide. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779964
- lame88 7y agoI'm surprised at the lack of skepticism in the discussion here. The term "politics" - even assuming there is a problem with fiery discussions of what we traditionally view that term to cover - could easily cover dissent over programs like Dragonfly. Most controversy within Google that is publicly known is politically motivated. Don't take this term at face value.
- ThetaOneOne 7y agoYeah politics is an extremely broad topic. What’s common sense to one person is a insane governmental overreach to another. While I don’t think politics should hold a large place in the work place I’m always mindful when speech is restricted in pursuit of restricting “toxicity.”
- m0zg 7y agoIf they can actually pull this off (which I doubt), I might consider working there again. I had an offer from them last Dec and turned it down, in part, because this shit is borderline unbearable on the inside (I worked at Google in the past when it was less political, and it was barely tolerable even then). A good number of people do nothing but stir shit up on the internal forums and mailing lists. They also seem to be "untouchable" because stirring shit typically takes the form of grievance peddling or white knighting, so if you just let them go, their (rather extensive) cliques would give you hell for "discrimination" and write petitions, go to the press, etc, etc, as we've seen after a few higher profile departures over the past couple of years. You don't want to be called a misogynist or racist for disagreeing with literally anything they say, do you? It'd be good for the leadership to grow some gender-appropriate gonads, and refocus the company on the business side of things for a change. Activism is fine, just not on the company's time, and not when it impacts the business or other employees. Just like I don't want to hear what church (if any) you go to, or what gender you prefer in bed, I also don't want to know what your political preferences are. Nor do I like to feel obliged to share your opinion any of those things, even if you think you're "right". I'm trying to work. You're getting in the way. This should apply equally to all: as a conservative, I don't want to hear about conservative issues at work either. I want to hear about work, and _only_ work.
- einhverfr 7y agoBy the way, I don't have a problem drawing the line at disruptive political debates. However, I don't trust companies to evenly apply such rules.
- cryptozeus 7y agoAm I the only one who thinks it’s totally okay for a Company to allow or not allow certain kinds of discussions within their offices. Why is this even a debate ? Companies are not run like democracies !! You dont loke the rule, change the company.
- lonelappde 7y agoHeadline is a lie that the article body quickly contradicts.
- habnds 7y agomost comments I've ever seen on a HN post I think
- beeschlenker 7y agoMaybe a few less politicians would help....ok maybe a dozen or two: Soros funded child rape ring protected by Trump for $4 billion bribe, Pelosi $3 billion to "ensure safe passage over border". Participants include Obama, Schumer, Cuomo, Buttgieg, DeBlasio, Theil, Dorsey, Bill Murray. Over 60+ deaths from rapes, billions in payoffs. Listen to them do it here: BE SURE TO Listen! to previously unprocessed footage now available [Soros, 0bama child rapes 15Jan 4-6am], Obama around 524: "Why is there so much blood? Someone get me something to clean the blood off my dick..." >>> banned in LA, NYC, CHI, SF, BOS, DC... *note: -> groups of links are multiple ways to get the same file -> 15JanCh3_347-528.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8YeDzghf95FQrxBaMpXK4b-SfJYERs8/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8YeDzghf95FQrxBaMpXK4b-SfJ... https://mega.nz/#!bTQwDQDA!jolSOqGR2Zomhtn7zIG0lGmqXSqe3KG1mO_7nKLrqNo https://mega.nz/#!bTQwDQDA!jolSOqGR2Zomhtn7zIG0lGmqXSqe3KG1m... 15JanCh3_528-545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavyRFWTRv4_teHYewpQMwMCq6LDzb6Y/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavyRFWTRv4_teHYewpQMwMCq6L... https://mega.nz/#!DfBywKKR!llMUzB8DLM2Rcvm0QkOKdiE3PpCY5YeR3yJwrm9R_4U https://mega.nz/#!DfBywKKR!llMUzB8DLM2Rcvm0QkOKdiE3PpCY5YeR3... 15JanCh4_400-600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavnBCyhq_JRmST2QH5qlojUE6dr5IWS/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavnBCyhq_JRmST2QH5qlojUE6d... https://mega.nz/#!faZggSja!yF_QOcodvYXwk7qEO1N8eSaV90ZWUUaS18Surn8rnEU https://mega.nz/#!faZggSja!yF_QOcodvYXwk7qEO1N8eSaV90ZWUUaS1... See pgs 18-23,8,11,12,35,45,61,62, and update list at end of doc.. Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored/banned. Billions in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 80 page document [update 20Aug] filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18 through 23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it, or save it for later because it will likely get removed sooner or later. I keep getting censored by these people. Bill DeBlasio's turn starts at 2100: https://mega.nz/#!OCJwQSBC!AlER6vRRTKS8yvSxnVwAl3ha3kGDLqoouQe53zkGARg https://mega.nz/#!OCJwQSBC!AlER6vRRTKS8yvSxnVwAl3ha3kGDLqoou... Andrew Cuomo's starts at 2200: https://mega.nz/#!qKZChABY!zy-2jIHqEg4gWHNbiEym-YBdSs5Y9qzT2ARieV_eozA https://mega.nz/#!qKZChABY!zy-2jIHqEg4gWHNbiEym-YBdSs5Y9qzT2... Both files in one here: 14JanCh3_2100-2300.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yolCgVtY5b8d8YDcshwb-Yd3kS0Jg-Bk/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yolCgVtY5b8d8YDcshwb-Yd3kS0... Peter Thiel starts at 100, Jack Dorsey at 130 each raping and killing three boys. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing https://mega.nz/#!qHhRiKLI!Tl1AnP0Lq6GIBH2MGitYNuXoe81uYeVQdxwSaZ8CY7o \0bama admits to raping and killing boys here at about 547, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing https://mega.nz/#!veBk1KrL!zkO_keTyZAtNoTGEGsfRmXyuVIj9p8c3R8GtY-o_Nt8 DTrump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015++ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 Porter: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing https://mega.nz/#!TKgxzS5J!i-nWn3HaOAJPU7rju83B4qcwSzun4Dl2B29FEZxtMSU Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment, as in no trial or hearing, simlpy entering in a judgement into the system thus bypassing the fifth amendment right of due process: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing https://mega.nz/#!jSwzFYLY!RFQvL8KIyFZf1WfC6tGoPFgJ4aREeGE_pe3i2fwshy8 Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey...At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill Murray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illuminati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapists. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who we are.": https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing https://mega.nz/#!nbhTwALA!qmf_0Lq0jApSwxRj1KRS_Q7QYbg4aJc4JMU9rDjR_yo Full 80 page document [updated 20Aug]: three ways to get it: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing https://mega.nz/#!OKYwES6A!zPGcRSg5de1XALI3FtUH3FCNCuLUzQbZN0l5iNCQqmU \Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". Getting blocked, censored, "downvoted" etc. These people are extremely wealthy and throw money to anyone who will help them cover up their child rapes & murders, corruption. Ironically, this is usually done through a receivership transfer, where you receive the funds after four or more day, and it can be pulled at the last second, whch is usually the case, after you've done them the "service". A word about the "f@\&&ot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other f@%%ot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link for the doc is just above under "Full 80 page document".
- WheelsAtLarge 7y agoThere is a reason you keep away from discussing politics and religion in certain places. We all get excited when discussing them and nothing gets solved. Work is the wrong place for it. Google should have known this by now. It's about time they start doing something about it.
- memmcgee 7y agoGenuinely don't know if HN is as reactionary as this comment sections makes it seem or if we're just getting astroturfed by the usual suspects. I can't be the only one who sees this as a significant crackdown on employee freedoms and an attempt to silence dissent.
- iamleppert 7y agoIt's about time Google cracked the whip on this entitled engineers! Maybe they would shut down less products if employees were actually at their posts and kept their noses clean! As an employee of a company, YOU are the one who needs to just show up and do your job without complaints or causing a disruption in the work place!
- mancerayder 7y agoWhat a busy topic! My first reaction (to the general topic) was, "Well, of course they had to put a stop to that. And international message forums with many participants? What a recipe for disaster." But then I had to be honest with myself: I'm at work at least 45 hours a week (not at Google, but in tech). My commute time is 45 minutes each way. So out of 11-12 hours of not-me-time, you want me to completely keep my trap shut? That's a hard ask. Here's an example. Earlier this week, I'm on my way to the subway and I see a fight, and I also see piss on two sets of seats on both sides of the subway car. Then I'm at work and my colleague, unprompted and as I come in, remarks how many more heroin-addled people there are in Midtown, Manhattan than he's ever seen. I then blurt out a rant about the Mayor, criminal justice policies I consider wrong (such as the push to lower incarceration without consequence), and a few other things that were aggressively opinionated and political, in an open office environment. Shortly thereafter I somewhat regretted it (but I never expected any consequences). We're only human. It just needs to be channeled. Keep it to your local work friends, or at the bar, or whatever that ISN'T on a message board.
- segmondy 7y agoGoogle shouldn't even have to say this to a bunch of grown ups. You don't talk about Politics, Religion, Sex, Health and Wealth with strangers.
- discordance 7y agoSeems like one of those Google internal threads has spilled external onto HN
- RickJWagner 7y agoYes! It's about time work and politics were made separate. Political discussion quickly turn toxic. Nobody is convinced of anything, and career harm is a definite possibility. This is a great, common-sense move. Kudos to Google.
- jdlyga 7y agoI couldn't imagine debating politics at work.
- shitgoose 7y agoit is amazing how one simple thought escapes google execs - country is split in two halfs. google has strongly affiliated itself with one of the halfs to the point of complete alienation by other half. google would rather stick to its questionable political preferences and lose 50% of the market. sounds like a poor business decision.
- mrtweetyhack 7y agoWhy do they have time to talk at all?
- djtriptych 7y agoWorked at Google for a short time (2013-2014), during the height of Trayvon Martin and other murders of black folks around then. The internal discussion could really be hard to read for me (I'm black). Still, I don't think it should really be stopped. I was glad to be able to express my actual opinions at work. I think they'll have a really hard time totally stopping it though. Internally it's really like a college atmosphere, at least in terms of exchanging ideas via their intranet. I was amazed that it was so open in that way, and I hope they find a way to keep that culture alive. On the other hand, it was hard to work with people that help views that I considered racist or nearly so. No easy solution here.
- numakerg 7y ago>The internal discussion could really be hard to read for me (I'm black) Was it a minority of people who had views that were hard to read or the majority? I was under the impression that most people at Google were not supportive of his acquittal.
- djtriptych 7y agoLoud minority - including a lot of non-US workers as I recall.
- Mistrustbuster 7y agoOwnership of a multinational conglomarate corporation whose practices effect the lives of billions requires either governance or real stewardship. Google is driven by one thing making profit. There stewardship is morally defunct. their profits are driven by the sale of the never ending stream of consumer information they glean from the electronic fields where they harvest. That info is all encompassing some you or I would consider private some nonsense. others might percieve that very same data differantly. All of it can be used to map and monitise people, placea, ideas and things. All of it used to know you. To not deamand or hold google accountable for their caveat emptor and lasie fair monopoly is foolish. to allow them or their users a free hand is naive. Ideas are more powerful then weapons. Greed a larger motivator then morals. Google launched in the U.S. has taken those profits and used them to court profits in countrys where their motivations are not the U.S.s motivations but googles remains the same. Harvest information and sale it. Dont ask what the info is used for.
- intopieces 7y agoI don't work at Google. But, I wouldn't even discuss politics with people that I know agree with me. It's just not professional. I am a little surprised it's taken this long for this to come to a head -- the HR department must be breathing a sigh of relief.
- flippinburgers 7y agoIf I had to guess, the individuals demanding that google employees be allowed to debate political subjects because "everything is political" are the same people who would argue that consumers of google's services shouldn't expect that google won't censor them. An odd position to take if you ask me.