3 ms·
I think it’s important to be specific. Probably it was not who we think of when we say “googlers”, but rather it was upper management within Google. Frankly, I
by blunte 6y ago
I think it’s important to be specific. Probably it was not who we think of when we say “googlers”, but rather it was upper management within Google.
Frankly, I see two googles: the people who make a lot of decent or great stuff, and the upper decision makers who act against the interests of the other group and the consumers.
- yifanl 6y agoIf we, the average user, can only see/use/consume the outputs of one of those halves, then its only worth considering that half as google.
- kevingadd 6y agoIt's not accurate to blame this on upper management. Someone, somewhere, pressed a button - either a human reviewer (yes, takedowns are often issued by a human) or someone who set up whatever botched ML algorithm decided to nuke this extension. It sounds to me like this was definitely humans. Humans also handle disputes, and Google's staff that handle them are borderline incompetent and don't respect developers or end-users. You can say "upper management sets the policies" but I think that's giving people with some degree of control a pass. A highly-compensated SWE definitely has the option to not just go with the flow.
- jaywalk 6y ago"Googlers" are happy to take a stand on politically-relevant topics that can earn them Virtue Points, while at the same time staying perfectly quiet on stuff like this that actually harms the people using their product.