4 ms·

This was a great read. Nothing like a story from the inside to highlight that senior executives at Google really don't care about human rights and just how far

This was a great read. Nothing like a story from the inside to highlight that senior executives at Google really don't care about human rights and just how far down the slippery slope they've already gone.

enitihas 7y ago
At which big company do you think senior executives care about human rights? I am not saying Google shouldn't strive to do better than others, but just curious.
- hacknat 7y ago
  If big is the problem than maybe we should break these monopolies up.
  - enitihas 7y ago
    How does that work well in a global economy? What if China doesn't break their big companies, but rather encourages them?
    - andreilys 7y ago
      What will likely happen is those companies will now have less competition and as a result dominate the world economy. Serving as yet another tool to exert and influence the geopolitical landscape.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Free trade is not a law of nature.
        enitihas 7y ago
        Off-course not. However, the economy would change a lot if we were to take that view, and we will have other problems.
        anoncake 7y ago
        Change is not a bad thing.
      - infinityplus1 7y ago
        Those big companies can simply be banned. Look at Huavei.
        enitihas 7y ago
        Was huawei ever banned, or only threatened?
      - hacknat 7y ago
        The first word of your response belies its incorrectness. While you may end up being right, the situation is anything but “simple”. There are plenty of Monopolies that were taken down by innovation in the last 20 years. Monopolies are not autocrats. They do have lots of power, but they’re not invincible, especially when it comes to innovating.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        enitihas 7y ago
        And which monopolies were replaced with a good competitive landscape. Nobody is saying innovation can't replace monopolies, just that they are more likely to be replaced by another innovative monopoly rather than several competitive businesses.
- lokar 7y ago
  I think the interesting part (from this story, and my personal experience) was that Google execs did care for as long as they did. It obviously ended, but much later then I would have expected.
- michaelt 7y ago
  A lot of companies are less subject to criticism by simply not having an arsenal of spying and censorship tools at their disposal, or China as a major target market. If you're a senior executive at CVS or Verizon or Home Depot you don't need a stance on disputed borders in your maps or flags in your emoji set - making it much easier to avoid the kind of criticisms tech companies are vulnerable to. Sure, you're vulnerable to criticism for selling products brought from (or containing components brought from) oppressive regimes, but Apple and Google and Microsoft all do that and the other stuff as well
- advisedwang 7y ago
  I think Larry and Sergey did. And that's kind of the authors point when he talks about leadership change.
fernandopj 7y ago
Well, the author is now running for a US public office position. So I personally take this article as just another form of content marketing for his new public persona.
- barrkel 7y ago
  Put yourself in the author's shoes. If you'd seen these kinds of wrongs and you wanted to right them, and discovered you couldn't do it from within the organization, how would you do it from the outside? Because from where I'm sitting, your narrative is universal against all politicians, and in fact democracy itself, since all political communications are just marketing to get elected.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    I think ordinary journalistic skepticism should apply here? He's telling a story from his perspective, but you can't judge a political situation by listening to only one of the people involved.
    - everdrive 7y ago
      The biggest point of skepticism in my mind is the combination of two totally unrelated qualms in one article. "Google ignored human rights in China in pursuit of profit. (and therefore Google is evil)" AND "Google isn't nice to women, minorities, and other groups. (and is therefore evil)" These two issues are not related at all. It's easy to imagine a company which didn't kowtow to China, but was still not treating minorities properly. And of course, it's easy to imagine the reverse. (and, I'll bet that latter scenario happens quite often.) The only real point relating them together is the author's personal grievance. It's also the case that the James Damore memo suggests the opposite problem the author complains about -- diversity policies which are too progressive. I'm not suggesting Damore is correct, and the author is incorrect, but instead that this line of argument is not a given. Further, although I completely agree with the complaints with regard to China, the author has said very little which was not already publicly known. That's a fine thing to do, but he muddies the water by mixing these large geopolitical problems with his own personal grievances. Lastly, I find it surprising that he does not know how HR works. As I mentioned above, HR prevents lawsuits. They only help you if helping you will prevent a lawsuit.

enitihas 7y ago

At which big company do you think senior executives care about human rights? I am not saying Google shouldn't strive to do better than others, but just curious.

hacknat 7y ago
If big is the problem than maybe we should break these monopolies up.
- enitihas 7y ago
  How does that work well in a global economy? What if China doesn't break their big companies, but rather encourages them?
  - andreilys 7y ago
    What will likely happen is those companies will now have less competition and as a result dominate the world economy. Serving as yet another tool to exert and influence the geopolitical landscape.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Free trade is not a law of nature.
      - enitihas 7y ago
        Off-course not. However, the economy would change a lot if we were to take that view, and we will have other problems.
        anoncake 7y ago
        Change is not a bad thing.
    - infinityplus1 7y ago
      Those big companies can simply be banned. Look at Huavei.
      - enitihas 7y ago
        Was huawei ever banned, or only threatened?
    - hacknat 7y ago
      The first word of your response belies its incorrectness. While you may end up being right, the situation is anything but “simple”. There are plenty of Monopolies that were taken down by innovation in the last 20 years. Monopolies are not autocrats. They do have lots of power, but they’re not invincible, especially when it comes to innovating.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - enitihas 7y ago
        And which monopolies were replaced with a good competitive landscape. Nobody is saying innovation can't replace monopolies, just that they are more likely to be replaced by another innovative monopoly rather than several competitive businesses.
lokar 7y ago
I think the interesting part (from this story, and my personal experience) was that Google execs did care for as long as they did. It obviously ended, but much later then I would have expected.
michaelt 7y ago
A lot of companies are less subject to criticism by simply not having an arsenal of spying and censorship tools at their disposal, or China as a major target market. If you're a senior executive at CVS or Verizon or Home Depot you don't need a stance on disputed borders in your maps or flags in your emoji set - making it much easier to avoid the kind of criticisms tech companies are vulnerable to. Sure, you're vulnerable to criticism for selling products brought from (or containing components brought from) oppressive regimes, but Apple and Google and Microsoft all do that and the other stuff as well
advisedwang 7y ago
I think Larry and Sergey did. And that's kind of the authors point when he talks about leadership change.

fernandopj 7y ago

Well, the author is now running for a US public office position. So I personally take this article as just another form of content marketing for his new public persona.

barrkel 7y ago
Put yourself in the author's shoes. If you'd seen these kinds of wrongs and you wanted to right them, and discovered you couldn't do it from within the organization, how would you do it from the outside? Because from where I'm sitting, your narrative is universal against all politicians, and in fact democracy itself, since all political communications are just marketing to get elected.
- skybrian 7y ago
  I think ordinary journalistic skepticism should apply here? He's telling a story from his perspective, but you can't judge a political situation by listening to only one of the people involved.
  - everdrive 7y ago
    The biggest point of skepticism in my mind is the combination of two totally unrelated qualms in one article. "Google ignored human rights in China in pursuit of profit. (and therefore Google is evil)" AND "Google isn't nice to women, minorities, and other groups. (and is therefore evil)" These two issues are not related at all. It's easy to imagine a company which didn't kowtow to China, but was still not treating minorities properly. And of course, it's easy to imagine the reverse. (and, I'll bet that latter scenario happens quite often.) The only real point relating them together is the author's personal grievance. It's also the case that the James Damore memo suggests the opposite problem the author complains about -- diversity policies which are too progressive. I'm not suggesting Damore is correct, and the author is incorrect, but instead that this line of argument is not a given. Further, although I completely agree with the complaints with regard to China, the author has said very little which was not already publicly known. That's a fine thing to do, but he muddies the water by mixing these large geopolitical problems with his own personal grievances. Lastly, I find it surprising that he does not know how HR works. As I mentioned above, HR prevents lawsuits. They only help you if helping you will prevent a lawsuit.