This article feels like a rosy, uncritical review of Google under Pichai. Even the opening sentence here is full of tone deaf hypocrisy: > [Sundar Pichai] says

This article feels like a rosy, uncritical review of Google under Pichai. Even the opening sentence here is full of tone deaf hypocrisy: > [Sundar Pichai] says many countries are restricting the flow of information, and the model is often taken for granted. Like when Google, with more influence than most countries, censors content on YouTube or the Google App Store? Google’s manipulation of information amounts to political propaganda to those who aren’t aligned with their prevailing views - naturally many countries will balk at letting that kind of foreign interference/control influence their own societies. And I can’t help but view Pichai’s perspective on taxes as a form of convenient regulatory capture / barrier to competition: > I put this to Pichai, who said that Google no longer uses this scheme, is one of the world's biggest taxpayers, and complies with tax laws in every country in which it operates. The article also talks about the activist streak of Google and its employees but doesn’t challenge it: > With more than 100,000 staff, many of them hugely opinionated on internal message boards, and activist in nature, this is just impossible to control. There is a tension between Google genuinely embracing cognitive diversity by having people of all persuasions among its global staff, and at the same time really standing up for particular issues as a company. I don’t think this tension is actually present. Google is a dyed in the wool Bay Area tech company. I don’t think it has employees of “all persuasions” in any great numbers unless they are looking at only the left side of the American political spectrum.