4 ms·

Yep. This is hardly new. I have been at Google since the mid 2000s and this stuff has been around at least since then. There was also a similar training when I

Yep. This is hardly new. I have been at Google since the mid 2000s and this stuff has been around at least since then. There was also a similar training when I was at Microsoft. Btw, in the trainings I've taken, it's not just about avoiding specific words, but avoiding the thoughts behind those words. Our goal shouldn't be to "dominate the competition/market." The goal should be creating compelling experiences and products for our customers. Staying focused on the latter goal is long term better business and better global citizenship. I think saying that Google does this to "head off regulators" is not really fair. That's like saying "asdfasgasdgasdg pays their taxes to head off the IRS." I guess? In some sense we all follow the law partly in order to avoid the consequences of not doing so but it seems pejorative to say it this way. It makes it sound like there are a lot of other people who are paying their taxes out of the goodness of their hearts, but I'm the bad person who is only doing so to avoid legal consequences.

cma 6y ago
> Btw, in the trainings I've taken, it's not just about avoiding specific words, but avoiding the thoughts behind those words. It could be to keep the trainings themselves from looking bad during discovery.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  You can always come up with a sinister motivation for a good act. The question is whether there's evidence to support that surmise. I guess that's why sometimes it's best to look at the effects of the system rather than the intention behind it. Do the training actually have the effects that one would desire from them, if one had good intentions? At least in my case, the answer is yes. I have never thought about my work in terms of besting the competition. But then again I'm nobody important so what I think doesn't matter all that much. It would be interesting to know the mind of the executives whose thoughts on this subject might actually have an impact. Maybe during the upcoming lawsuits we'll be able to see more deeply into what they have been thinking.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    > You can always come up with a sinister motivation for a good act. You can also come up with a beneficial motivation for a sinister (or at least, not morally positive) act. (This is the one Google employs.) Google is a corporation, and it exists to extract money effectively from others to make it's shareholders rich. If a corporation says it is doing something for the good of the public, it's because looking good has positive value for the corporate brand. To some degree, there is also value in convincing employees that they are benefiting society as well: They work harder and above requirements without you having to pay them more, and they'll defend and advocate for their employer on social media for free. ;) That, of course, also has a positive value for the corporate brand. I definitely think the revealed internal emails (from all of Big Tech) will be exciting to see. It wasn't a surprise, for instance, but the emails about how Kindle purchases in iOS were shut down by Apple because of an Amazon ad about how Kindle books could come with you from iPhone to Android was very, very blunt.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      [Google/corporations] exist to extract money effectively from others to make it's shareholders rich . . . . . . by giving people something they want more than the money they're exchanging with the corporation. It's a positive sum game, at least in my estimation. But, yes, Google is not a charity, and I don't mean to pretend that it is more noble than it is. I'm not a charity either. I wouldn't do my work for free. But I don't blame anyone for being suspicious of Google or any other corporation's behavior. It's important to verify that corporations are behaving, because there have been plenty of instances of corporate malfeasance in the past.
    - class4behavior 6y ago
      > there is also value in convincing employees that they are benefiting society as welll: They work harder and above requirements without you having to pay them more, and they'll defend and advocate for their employer on social media for free. ;) Convincing one's employees of a particular perspective or belief has been a basic tactic of large corporations for decades. Tech culture disrupted this for a little bit, though.
danans 6y ago
> Our goal shouldn't be to "dominate the competition/market." The goal should be creating compelling experiences and products for our customers. Googler also. I believe that the phrase used to capture the desired mindset is "respect the opportunity".
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Ugh. I detest that phrase. :( It sounds so corporate.
  - danans 6y ago
    Doesn't sound corporate to me at all. Corporate to me is things like "increase synergy". Respecting the opportunities available to you by showing respect for your competitors who are just like you at the end of the day seems like a pretty real and relatable recommendation.
    - jpxw 6y ago
      If you need to remind yourself that you need to “respect the competition”, you’re probably a monopoly.
      - jmole 6y ago
        i disagree - to me, "respect the competition" means don't grow complacent. ebay, for example, doesn't respect the competition (and has grown correspondingly complacent), and it's why sites like reverb are popping up and serving niches far better than ebay does.
      - danans 6y ago
        I think it's about cultivating a healthier mindset about why you develop products, in particular avoiding the trap of zero sum, win/lose thinking.
WalterBright 6y ago
> it's not just about avoiding specific words, but avoiding the thoughts behind those words. People are always trying to control the thoughts of others by banning certain words. Is there any evidence it works? I've seen plenty of evidence it does not, as the new word simply takes on the meaning of the old one. Then that new word gets banned as well.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  The intent was not to control the thoughts by banning the words. The intent was to discourage action based on thoughts of domination, because it is illegal. "These are some things you should not do. Writing down these words would indicate you are doing one of the proscribed actions do don't do that either."
- monadic2 6y ago
  > People are always trying to control the thoughts of others by banning certain words. I can really only think of one truly banned word....
  - monadic2 6y ago
    To give context, WalterBright is a libertarian with a clear bent to ignore white supremacy in western culture. He is also known for other reasons.

cma 6y ago

> Btw, in the trainings I've taken, it's not just about avoiding specific words, but avoiding the thoughts behind those words. It could be to keep the trainings themselves from looking bad during discovery.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
You can always come up with a sinister motivation for a good act. The question is whether there's evidence to support that surmise. I guess that's why sometimes it's best to look at the effects of the system rather than the intention behind it. Do the training actually have the effects that one would desire from them, if one had good intentions? At least in my case, the answer is yes. I have never thought about my work in terms of besting the competition. But then again I'm nobody important so what I think doesn't matter all that much. It would be interesting to know the mind of the executives whose thoughts on this subject might actually have an impact. Maybe during the upcoming lawsuits we'll be able to see more deeply into what they have been thinking.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  > You can always come up with a sinister motivation for a good act. You can also come up with a beneficial motivation for a sinister (or at least, not morally positive) act. (This is the one Google employs.) Google is a corporation, and it exists to extract money effectively from others to make it's shareholders rich. If a corporation says it is doing something for the good of the public, it's because looking good has positive value for the corporate brand. To some degree, there is also value in convincing employees that they are benefiting society as well: They work harder and above requirements without you having to pay them more, and they'll defend and advocate for their employer on social media for free. ;) That, of course, also has a positive value for the corporate brand. I definitely think the revealed internal emails (from all of Big Tech) will be exciting to see. It wasn't a surprise, for instance, but the emails about how Kindle purchases in iOS were shut down by Apple because of an Amazon ad about how Kindle books could come with you from iPhone to Android was very, very blunt.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    [Google/corporations] exist to extract money effectively from others to make it's shareholders rich . . . . . . by giving people something they want more than the money they're exchanging with the corporation. It's a positive sum game, at least in my estimation. But, yes, Google is not a charity, and I don't mean to pretend that it is more noble than it is. I'm not a charity either. I wouldn't do my work for free. But I don't blame anyone for being suspicious of Google or any other corporation's behavior. It's important to verify that corporations are behaving, because there have been plenty of instances of corporate malfeasance in the past.
  - class4behavior 6y ago
    > there is also value in convincing employees that they are benefiting society as welll: They work harder and above requirements without you having to pay them more, and they'll defend and advocate for their employer on social media for free. ;) Convincing one's employees of a particular perspective or belief has been a basic tactic of large corporations for decades. Tech culture disrupted this for a little bit, though.

danans 6y ago

> Our goal shouldn't be to "dominate the competition/market." The goal should be creating compelling experiences and products for our customers. Googler also. I believe that the phrase used to capture the desired mindset is "respect the opportunity".

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Ugh. I detest that phrase. :( It sounds so corporate.
- danans 6y ago
  Doesn't sound corporate to me at all. Corporate to me is things like "increase synergy". Respecting the opportunities available to you by showing respect for your competitors who are just like you at the end of the day seems like a pretty real and relatable recommendation.
  - jpxw 6y ago
    If you need to remind yourself that you need to “respect the competition”, you’re probably a monopoly.
    - jmole 6y ago
      i disagree - to me, "respect the competition" means don't grow complacent. ebay, for example, doesn't respect the competition (and has grown correspondingly complacent), and it's why sites like reverb are popping up and serving niches far better than ebay does.
    - danans 6y ago
      I think it's about cultivating a healthier mindset about why you develop products, in particular avoiding the trap of zero sum, win/lose thinking.

WalterBright 6y ago

> it's not just about avoiding specific words, but avoiding the thoughts behind those words. People are always trying to control the thoughts of others by banning certain words. Is there any evidence it works? I've seen plenty of evidence it does not, as the new word simply takes on the meaning of the old one. Then that new word gets banned as well.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
The intent was not to control the thoughts by banning the words. The intent was to discourage action based on thoughts of domination, because it is illegal. "These are some things you should not do. Writing down these words would indicate you are doing one of the proscribed actions do don't do that either."
monadic2 6y ago
> People are always trying to control the thoughts of others by banning certain words. I can really only think of one truly banned word....
- monadic2 6y ago
  To give context, WalterBright is a libertarian with a clear bent to ignore white supremacy in western culture. He is also known for other reasons.