4 ms·

I’ve been wondering how sincere the Silicon Valley corporate mantra of Be yourself, Be authentic, be open to management really was. There was so much idealism

I’ve been wondering how sincere the Silicon Valley corporate mantra of Be yourself, Be authentic, be open to management really was. There was so much idealism even on Hacker news. Nowadays I witness the strange contradiction of people bashing giant tech companies while mostly discussing how to found the next giant tech company. A lot of us did genuinely believe it. However as the companies grew and became mega corps the realities of life in normal companies have slowly made themsleves felt. It’s a bit like the Adam Curtis documentary hyper normalization. Where we all pretend that everything is still the same as before, but beneath the still free sushi ,massages and high compensation a lot has changed.

throwawayhaxx99 6y ago
Nobody intelligent ever thought it was sincere
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I'm probably not intelligent then. In the early 00's, I did think Google mostly believed in its mission to organize and act as a gateway for the world's information.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    You were naive, not dumb, usual thing with young people
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Yep, though I knew even at the time that most companies' mission statements were BS. Google seemed different. I think at some point they still actually were different, but also were themselves naive about what being successful and transforming into a large corporation would do to them.
- davesque 6y ago
  Honestly, I think this attitude makes much more sense in the present era than it did before about ten years ago. There was a time when IMHO you weren't just naive for believing that Google was sincere about its "don't be evil" mantra. The current age really is one of cynicism. Of course, in my mind that's a completely separate question from whether or not Google is being evil in this case. As far as that goes, I honestly really don't know the answer.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I suspect very few employees actually think that google is evil. The phrase was noteworthy at the time because it was so hyperbolic. It was only now when nuance has been thrown out the window that everything has to be black and white.
    - gretch 6y ago
      Disclosure: employee I hate that the HN audience put so much significance on google “abandoning” (it didn’t) this mantra. Anyone who actually understands depth in any topic knows that it’s not as simple as “don’t be evil”. Like oh cool thanks man. Yeah now I know exactly what the right moral path is - just don’t be evil duh. It adds no practical value to decision making other to serve as directional inspiration. But you’re not going to be sitting there trying to find the right balance of weights in search ranking in order to keep fairness and equity and just be like “right, don’t be evil”
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
For me at least, it really was sincere, but in retrospect I was terribly naive about the shared cultural context required to make it work. My idea of "be authentic, be yourself" just didn't include a lot of people who authentically disagree with me on what a good working environment is like.
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
For myself, I reconcile the tension by telling myself that giant tech companies are like invasive species - aggressive and bad for the environment in the short term, but also the only thing that can survive in a certain kind of environment. The proper goal, as I see it, is to plan to build the next giant tech company and be willing to step on as many toes as necessary to make it happen... but to have an ideal in mind that goes beyond that 'growth at all costs' stage in which the company could actually increase the health of its ecosystem.
- solipsism 6y ago
  have an ideal in mind that goes beyond that 'growth at all costs' stage in which the company could actually increase the health of its ecosystem. Ideal is right, because that is idealistic to the point of naivete. The second a company takes its eye off the ball and starts trying to better the world, its competitors swoop in and take over. The right answer is for a society to create laws that ensure the behavior we want to see out of corporations. When that's not effective because corporations have undue influence on the legal system, then it's very clear and simple the problem you need to solve.
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    See, that looks to me like naivete about the behaviour of the regulatory apparatus. Ultimately, a civilisation runs on both rules and tools, and while we clearly have opposite biases about where the low-hanging fruit are, I think we also both know it's not really true that there are zero improvements to be made in either realm. I'd be happy to share my scepticism about attempts to reform the 'rules' side of the equation if you like, but my own interest is in tools. Some tools allow a few players to dominate a limited number of niches, others allow many players to thrive in many niches. If you're going to be a toolmaker, trying to gain dominance and then keep the environment static is actually a self-limiting strategy, Nothing in nature or history has proven able to do that. The only time one player can dominate a limited number of niches is when there are few niches to begin with. Successfully dominating a niche actually gives more opportunities to create niches adjacent to one's own. Amazon carving out a niche in e-commerce is what allows it to provide services to authors and vendors.

throwawayhaxx99 6y ago

Nobody intelligent ever thought it was sincere

ineedasername 6y ago
I'm probably not intelligent then. In the early 00's, I did think Google mostly believed in its mission to organize and act as a gateway for the world's information.
- cambalache 6y ago
  You were naive, not dumb, usual thing with young people
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Yep, though I knew even at the time that most companies' mission statements were BS. Google seemed different. I think at some point they still actually were different, but also were themselves naive about what being successful and transforming into a large corporation would do to them.
davesque 6y ago
Honestly, I think this attitude makes much more sense in the present era than it did before about ten years ago. There was a time when IMHO you weren't just naive for believing that Google was sincere about its "don't be evil" mantra. The current age really is one of cynicism. Of course, in my mind that's a completely separate question from whether or not Google is being evil in this case. As far as that goes, I honestly really don't know the answer.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I suspect very few employees actually think that google is evil. The phrase was noteworthy at the time because it was so hyperbolic. It was only now when nuance has been thrown out the window that everything has to be black and white.
  - gretch 6y ago
    Disclosure: employee I hate that the HN audience put so much significance on google “abandoning” (it didn’t) this mantra. Anyone who actually understands depth in any topic knows that it’s not as simple as “don’t be evil”. Like oh cool thanks man. Yeah now I know exactly what the right moral path is - just don’t be evil duh. It adds no practical value to decision making other to serve as directional inspiration. But you’re not going to be sitting there trying to find the right balance of weights in search ranking in order to keep fairness and equity and just be like “right, don’t be evil”

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

For me at least, it really was sincere, but in retrospect I was terribly naive about the shared cultural context required to make it work. My idea of "be authentic, be yourself" just didn't include a lot of people who authentically disagree with me on what a good working environment is like.

SuoDuanDao 6y ago

For myself, I reconcile the tension by telling myself that giant tech companies are like invasive species - aggressive and bad for the environment in the short term, but also the only thing that can survive in a certain kind of environment. The proper goal, as I see it, is to plan to build the next giant tech company and be willing to step on as many toes as necessary to make it happen... but to have an ideal in mind that goes beyond that 'growth at all costs' stage in which the company could actually increase the health of its ecosystem.

solipsism 6y ago
have an ideal in mind that goes beyond that 'growth at all costs' stage in which the company could actually increase the health of its ecosystem. Ideal is right, because that is idealistic to the point of naivete. The second a company takes its eye off the ball and starts trying to better the world, its competitors swoop in and take over. The right answer is for a society to create laws that ensure the behavior we want to see out of corporations. When that's not effective because corporations have undue influence on the legal system, then it's very clear and simple the problem you need to solve.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  See, that looks to me like naivete about the behaviour of the regulatory apparatus. Ultimately, a civilisation runs on both rules and tools, and while we clearly have opposite biases about where the low-hanging fruit are, I think we also both know it's not really true that there are zero improvements to be made in either realm. I'd be happy to share my scepticism about attempts to reform the 'rules' side of the equation if you like, but my own interest is in tools. Some tools allow a few players to dominate a limited number of niches, others allow many players to thrive in many niches. If you're going to be a toolmaker, trying to gain dominance and then keep the environment static is actually a self-limiting strategy, Nothing in nature or history has proven able to do that. The only time one player can dominate a limited number of niches is when there are few niches to begin with. Successfully dominating a niche actually gives more opportunities to create niches adjacent to one's own. Amazon carving out a niche in e-commerce is what allows it to provide services to authors and vendors.