5 ms·

> There's so much Google is doing to directly damage the technology ecosystem. It seems silly to protest some customer's business when Google itself is generati

> There's so much Google is doing to directly damage the technology ecosystem. It seems silly to protest some customer's business when Google itself is generating a ton of protest worthy things. Probably because employees motivated enough to protest value the actual ecosystem more than the technological one, and care more about detention camps at the border than an url format? (just a wild guess)

brokenkebab 7y ago
Your comment is essentially "How can we care about A when someone's suffering from B in Kolechia?" which is a emotionally manipulative argument, actually. You still can, and should pay attention to issues one step away from you.
- roenxi 7y ago
  That argument would be emotionally manipulative, but that isn't the major problem here. Society's use of oil and gas is a totally political question of how much pain we experience in the near term vs the long term and who pays for any trade-offs that get made. It is not kosher for employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals. Particularly because Google's position in the world is to provide people with facts and evidence - if they are being pressured internally by political actors then that compromises their trustworthiness as a search provider. They aren't a traditional media organisation where a page full of propaganda and lies is par for the course and everyone knows it. People expect them to use a politically neutral algorithm. Are there people who believe that we need "urgent and decisive action" on political topics who have influence over the search index? How are they using that influence? What would happen if the next generation of employees have a radically different political view? These aren't new questions; Google's rankings are always going to be an interesting subject - and there is every chance that someone is running a smear campaign with stories of these intercompany issues. However, they are the important questions when Google employees do something political.
  - magicalist 7y ago
    > Society's use of oil and gas is a totally political question of how much pain we experience in the near term vs the long term and who pays for any trade-offs that get made. It is not kosher for employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals. lol, yes, when it comes to oil and gas, it's widely expected that companies not push for political goals. Oil and gas companies companies steer well clear of those politics. Yep.
    - viridian 7y ago
      Your comment is the least charitable possible interpretation of the above user's statement, and adds nothing except for biting sarcasm to the discussion. I hope that every user here tries to leave hacker news a better, more thoughtful place than they found it.
      - magicalist 7y ago
        > Your comment is the least charitable possible interpretation of the above user's statement Please, do tell, then. Because "that's not a nice reaction" is not the same as an uncharitable interpretation. It's ridiculous on its face to call for employees of a company to not engage in politics and define the use of oil and gas as political and therefore out of bounds, when the actions being taken here are engaging with the actions of oil and gas companies. (leaving aside the idea that it's ok for me, internet commentator, to have strong opinions, but not the employees that make some product I use)
        viridian 7y ago
        You interpreted "employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals" as "companies not push[ing] for political goals" in order to sarcastically respond. There is a difference between a company and it's individual employees, and rephrasing the statement such that "employees of a company" is replaced with "a company" in order to mock a user is rude and also not substantive.
- magicalist 7y ago
  > ...which is a emotionally manipulative argument, actually. You still can, and should pay attention to issues one step away from you. The OP literally called protesting one thing silly and the other thing protest worthy, so it sounds like your beef is with them.
- Voloskaya 7y ago
  That's not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you are surprised by the fact they are protesting against ICE/Big Oil and not way more trivial (in the grand scheme of things) and tech-centered things, then you are living in a bubble. I am not saying it would be wrong that they protest AMP and not ICE, just that you can't be surprised it doesn't happen.
  - brokenkebab 7y ago
    and not way more trivial and tech centered things Looks like it's supporting what I said. As for bubbles we are all living in them. For example, by being an American-based activist, you believe your US-centric disagreements around enforcement of immigration policies to be a global issue. Which looks funny for someone from outside, like me. I would say that long queues for cancer treatment in my country is more important for me. Your bubble is not holier then mine, or any other human out there.
    - Voloskaya 7y ago
      > by being an American-based activist I am not American (nor living or ever lived in the USA), I am not an activist. :) I am just able to look at the situation from the point of view of people protesting (I think it's called empathy), and I can understand why, for them, protesting ICE/Big Oil, is more important than protesting amp.
      - brokenkebab 7y ago
        That makes your bubble interesting, although not unique. Your comment looks like an absolutist statement about importance hierarchy, and you don't feel equally for malvosenior, so it's not necessary empathy, could be association. "From point of view" - that makes sense, but when that point is so global one ignores own backyard for years, there are questions avout sincerety like malvosenior raised.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  I agree, but most people have a limited amount of energy they are willing to expend on political causes. It takes time & effort to rally people around a common cause - hopefully these issues will have their day, but absent organizing machinery you can really only get people to care about big-ticket items rather than slowly creeping ones.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  They're just saying most people don't care about AMP, a relatively dumb and opaque issue when compared with environmental issue.
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  Or to borrow a far older phrase: "First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye."
  - throwaway8879 7y ago
    That's an interesting saying, thanks for sharing. Just today morning I was listening to an audiobook that mentioned something similar _ "physician, heal thyself so you may heal thy patient...".
  - Voloskaya 7y ago
    Yes Amp is a beam and climate change / the situation with ICE are specks, that makes sense.
- adrianmonk 7y ago
  No. Someone raised the question of which cause should be the priority. In such a context, it is absolutely 100% fair game to talk about why someone would be more motivated to care about one cause than another.
there_the_and 7y ago
[deleted]
- jayd16 7y ago
  I think you're just saying the exact same thing but with a lower opinion of Google employees.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Yeah. You know the universal moral truth, and nobody could possibly disagree with you; everyone who claims so is actually just an hypocritical sellout.
mrrrgn 7y ago
At this point it's looking like the potential to kickstart a professional "activism" career is becoming a fringe benefit at Google. Given that, it's probably best to protest things that will win the attention of mainstream [non-tech] audiences so as to position oneself for the maximum possible upside.
- anongraddebt 7y ago
  This comment should be at the top of the thread.
- netsharc 7y ago
  Are you implying that the Googlers involved are doing this to advance themselves? Yes I know what virtue signaling is. Do you have evidence for that? To use the cliché, your statement seems to show more how you see the world than how they see it.
  - mrrrgn 7y ago
    > Are you implying that the Googlers involved are doing this to advance themselves? I'm stating the obvious fact that former Googlers have made themselves notable by engaging in public activism while at the company. Both conservative and liberal. If one dreams of becoming an activist and one happens to work at Google there are footsteps to follow in. Insofar as personal advancement goes. While there are exceptions, it should be fair to expect that what one does at work may be somehow related to personal advancement. This can be advancement in terms of getting promotions, growing skills, or establishing a reputation. Wholly selfless people aren't the norm in corporate work environments. That's fine. You can be a good person and not wholly selfless.
aantix 7y ago
Or they know that by attacking core technology decisions, search, privacy, they risk their very livelihoods and their bonus RSUs? Most won't risk their family's financial future and a half-million dollars. https://www.levels.fyi/ https://www.levels.fyi/ Whereas protesting something separate from corporate that is a safe (because let's face it, separating kids from their parents is incredibly messed up), probably won't jeopardize their job. Maybe at a micro-level, optimizing AdWords so that users "click more ads" is probably an incredibly empty job. Maybe by protesting something more virtuous, it gets them through their day jobs?
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  This is, of course, assuming that the very people implementing the things people here think they should protest don't think those things have value and should be implemented.

brokenkebab 7y ago

Your comment is essentially "How can we care about A when someone's suffering from B in Kolechia?" which is a emotionally manipulative argument, actually. You still can, and should pay attention to issues one step away from you.

roenxi 7y ago
That argument would be emotionally manipulative, but that isn't the major problem here. Society's use of oil and gas is a totally political question of how much pain we experience in the near term vs the long term and who pays for any trade-offs that get made. It is not kosher for employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals. Particularly because Google's position in the world is to provide people with facts and evidence - if they are being pressured internally by political actors then that compromises their trustworthiness as a search provider. They aren't a traditional media organisation where a page full of propaganda and lies is par for the course and everyone knows it. People expect them to use a politically neutral algorithm. Are there people who believe that we need "urgent and decisive action" on political topics who have influence over the search index? How are they using that influence? What would happen if the next generation of employees have a radically different political view? These aren't new questions; Google's rankings are always going to be an interesting subject - and there is every chance that someone is running a smear campaign with stories of these intercompany issues. However, they are the important questions when Google employees do something political.
- magicalist 7y ago
  > Society's use of oil and gas is a totally political question of how much pain we experience in the near term vs the long term and who pays for any trade-offs that get made. It is not kosher for employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals. lol, yes, when it comes to oil and gas, it's widely expected that companies not push for political goals. Oil and gas companies companies steer well clear of those politics. Yep.
  - viridian 7y ago
    Your comment is the least charitable possible interpretation of the above user's statement, and adds nothing except for biting sarcasm to the discussion. I hope that every user here tries to leave hacker news a better, more thoughtful place than they found it.
    - magicalist 7y ago
      > Your comment is the least charitable possible interpretation of the above user's statement Please, do tell, then. Because "that's not a nice reaction" is not the same as an uncharitable interpretation. It's ridiculous on its face to call for employees of a company to not engage in politics and define the use of oil and gas as political and therefore out of bounds, when the actions being taken here are engaging with the actions of oil and gas companies. (leaving aside the idea that it's ok for me, internet commentator, to have strong opinions, but not the employees that make some product I use)
      - viridian 7y ago
        You interpreted "employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals" as "companies not push[ing] for political goals" in order to sarcastically respond. There is a difference between a company and it's individual employees, and rephrasing the statement such that "employees of a company" is replaced with "a company" in order to mock a user is rude and also not substantive.
magicalist 7y ago
> ...which is a emotionally manipulative argument, actually. You still can, and should pay attention to issues one step away from you. The OP literally called protesting one thing silly and the other thing protest worthy, so it sounds like your beef is with them.
Voloskaya 7y ago
That's not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you are surprised by the fact they are protesting against ICE/Big Oil and not way more trivial (in the grand scheme of things) and tech-centered things, then you are living in a bubble. I am not saying it would be wrong that they protest AMP and not ICE, just that you can't be surprised it doesn't happen.
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  and not way more trivial and tech centered things Looks like it's supporting what I said. As for bubbles we are all living in them. For example, by being an American-based activist, you believe your US-centric disagreements around enforcement of immigration policies to be a global issue. Which looks funny for someone from outside, like me. I would say that long queues for cancer treatment in my country is more important for me. Your bubble is not holier then mine, or any other human out there.
  - Voloskaya 7y ago
    > by being an American-based activist I am not American (nor living or ever lived in the USA), I am not an activist. :) I am just able to look at the situation from the point of view of people protesting (I think it's called empathy), and I can understand why, for them, protesting ICE/Big Oil, is more important than protesting amp.
    - brokenkebab 7y ago
      That makes your bubble interesting, although not unique. Your comment looks like an absolutist statement about importance hierarchy, and you don't feel equally for malvosenior, so it's not necessary empathy, could be association. "From point of view" - that makes sense, but when that point is so global one ignores own backyard for years, there are questions avout sincerety like malvosenior raised.
ahelwer 7y ago
I agree, but most people have a limited amount of energy they are willing to expend on political causes. It takes time & effort to rally people around a common cause - hopefully these issues will have their day, but absent organizing machinery you can really only get people to care about big-ticket items rather than slowly creeping ones.
staticassertion 7y ago
They're just saying most people don't care about AMP, a relatively dumb and opaque issue when compared with environmental issue.
slowmovintarget 7y ago
Or to borrow a far older phrase: "First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye."
- throwaway8879 7y ago
  That's an interesting saying, thanks for sharing. Just today morning I was listening to an audiobook that mentioned something similar _ "physician, heal thyself so you may heal thy patient...".
- Voloskaya 7y ago
  Yes Amp is a beam and climate change / the situation with ICE are specks, that makes sense.
adrianmonk 7y ago
No. Someone raised the question of which cause should be the priority. In such a context, it is absolutely 100% fair game to talk about why someone would be more motivated to care about one cause than another.

there_the_and 7y ago

[deleted]

jayd16 7y ago
I think you're just saying the exact same thing but with a lower opinion of Google employees.
icebraining 7y ago
Yeah. You know the universal moral truth, and nobody could possibly disagree with you; everyone who claims so is actually just an hypocritical sellout.

mrrrgn 7y ago

At this point it's looking like the potential to kickstart a professional "activism" career is becoming a fringe benefit at Google. Given that, it's probably best to protest things that will win the attention of mainstream [non-tech] audiences so as to position oneself for the maximum possible upside.

anongraddebt 7y ago
This comment should be at the top of the thread.
netsharc 7y ago
Are you implying that the Googlers involved are doing this to advance themselves? Yes I know what virtue signaling is. Do you have evidence for that? To use the cliché, your statement seems to show more how you see the world than how they see it.
- mrrrgn 7y ago
  > Are you implying that the Googlers involved are doing this to advance themselves? I'm stating the obvious fact that former Googlers have made themselves notable by engaging in public activism while at the company. Both conservative and liberal. If one dreams of becoming an activist and one happens to work at Google there are footsteps to follow in. Insofar as personal advancement goes. While there are exceptions, it should be fair to expect that what one does at work may be somehow related to personal advancement. This can be advancement in terms of getting promotions, growing skills, or establishing a reputation. Wholly selfless people aren't the norm in corporate work environments. That's fine. You can be a good person and not wholly selfless.

aantix 7y ago

Or they know that by attacking core technology decisions, search, privacy, they risk their very livelihoods and their bonus RSUs? Most won't risk their family's financial future and a half-million dollars. https://www.levels.fyi/ https://www.levels.fyi/ Whereas protesting something separate from corporate that is a safe (because let's face it, separating kids from their parents is incredibly messed up), probably won't jeopardize their job. Maybe at a micro-level, optimizing AdWords so that users "click more ads" is probably an incredibly empty job. Maybe by protesting something more virtuous, it gets them through their day jobs?

shadowgovt 7y ago
This is, of course, assuming that the very people implementing the things people here think they should protest don't think those things have value and should be implemented.