6 ms·

Personally, I have some concerns over this approach. Google is a mediator between users and information. As such, it's really important to have and appear to h

Personally, I have some concerns over this approach. Google is a mediator between users and information. As such, it's really important to have and appear to have as little bias as possible - otherwise it taints the information that is coming through. To be effective as a tool, Google really needs to be transparent and impartial as possible. (See Google in China as a counterexample). Also, I question how effective this approach would be. I'm not sure many people that oppose gay marriage would be swayed by Google's statement... I mean, Google has a strong brand, but I really doubt people will vote no because "Google says so" in the same way as they would with say, Oprah. I think there are other advocacy paths that are more effective, and don't spend Google's brand/position in this way.

jfarmer 18y ago
Yep, being brave is hard and has risks. Personally I'm glad Google is still willing to take them.
- jwilliams 18y ago
  I wasn't arguing on the stance - just their approach. There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward. I just don't see this as an action that would change people's minds. I just believe Google has much better avenues for advocacy than this approach.
  - rms 18y ago
    I don't think this is about making an actual splash. Maybe it was done for the benefit of the Google employees? I would be surprised if this is noticed by the national media.
    - SapphireSun 18y ago
      Almost definitely. Brin stated:"...it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8." A company isn't just a profit machine. People live and work there to a degree. He probably saw some injustices in his company, and wanted to make a strong statement about how employees should be treated.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Perhaps secretly tilting all search results towards pro-gay-marriage websites would have been better? Of course they could also pour millions into campaigns. But I don't see why they should have to - they chose to make that statement in their blog, and maybe prefer to spend the millions on other things. What is wrong with that?
    - astine 18y ago
      That would be dishonest - not to mention a far graver threat to a free society than any legal bugaboo about what constitutes 'marriage.'
      - Tichy 18y ago
        I meant my statement as irony.
        astine 18y ago
        I should hope so, but I'm too jaded to assume so anymore.
  - chez17 18y ago
    "There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward." The reward is equal treatment for our gay brothers and sisters. The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down, not that I think they will. Are we so blinded by success and money here that we can't see a "reward" in helping a fellow human being?
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      > The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down Unfortunately, the law says that the Google Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If they decide to use the company in a way that is damaging to their shareholders' interests, they can be sued. Securities laws were introduced about eight decades ago to protect the small investor. The concern was that the small investor had little control over the actions of a company. Therefore, he had to be protected from the possibility that the managers might take his capital and use it for their own private purposes. The law makes no judgment about whether those private purposes are base or noble. If you want to sell shares to large amounts of people, then you are constrained by law to act in their best interest. Privately supporting equality for our gay brothers and sisters is one thing. Repurposing a publicly-held web services company to do so is quite another.
      - chez17 18y ago
        So if google came out against slavery or child molestation that would be a bad thing? I understand that the board has legal obligations, but to say that this is an issue that is even debatable is beyond ridiculous to me. Look at every companies "diversity" shot on their web page or brochure, companies like to show the public that they are caring and compassionate. This is no different.
        chollida1 18y ago
        > So if google came out against slavery or child molestation that would be a bad thing? I didn't make the previous statement but I don't think that is what was meant. The point is that shareholder laws state that the purpose of the company is to make money for all shareholders, not to push a social agenda. A company can take a stand on issues but when profit and social issues collide the company is bound to follow profit.
- patrickg-zill 18y ago
  What is so brave about taking the politically correct view?
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    It's brave because we can all pat ourselves on each others' backs and talk about how brave it is. Don't question the mob. The mob is always right.
    - jfarmer 18y ago
      It might be PC on Hacker News, but it's certainly not even in the state of CA. Leave CA and the opposite view is the prevalent one. Leave da bubble! (And also vote no on Prop 8. kthx.)
  - eggnet 18y ago
    The politically correct view is to dodge the issue. There are a large number of people that oppose a stance in either direction, so the best thing to do is say nothing and give nothing to either side to use as a reason to dislike you.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      I'd buy that if all the people opposed weren't being downmodded into the ground. To have a position from which dissent is not tolerated is the definition of PC. Hence the "correct" part of PC.
      - eggnet 18y ago
        I'll agree it's PC on Hacker News because apparently we have a large number of readers who don't like prop 8. As to the downmodding, there are other reasons that your comment could have been downmodded. Once you escape the bubble that is Hacker News you find an extremely large population of religious people that are for prop 8. So you have large populations for and against. Thus, either position is strongly supported and opposed, there is no correct position that will not be assaulted. Google didn't post on Hacker News, they posted on a public blog.
rms 18y ago
This idea that neutrality is something to strive for ends up marginalizing the correct point of view by giving equal time to the opposing point of view. In this case, the correct answer is obvious, that gay marraige should be permitted at the federal level. Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution -- it only ends up making the creationists look more legitimate. They don't deserve any attention or neutrality. In this case, Google has no bias because they are right.
- brandnewlow 18y ago
  So: "It's ok, because they're right." As a journalist (one who just finished interviewing someone I find personally despicable but who's done something newsworthy and interesting so merits coverage) I like to think that my readers are smart enough to suss out their own positions on the things I write about. It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." My job's to describe them and how they relate to one another and let the reader do his or her homework on which one they think is right. Drew Curtis has a great chapter in his book in which he rails against the media's penchant for giving equal time to "crazy people." He makes a great argument, but the problem is that it comes from an assumption that your readers are too lazy and dumb to make up their own minds about an issue, so we should be selective in how we treat different sides of an argument. That doesn't sit well.
  - pius 18y ago
    It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." Right, but it's also not your job to draw false dichotomies and go out of your way to imply moral equivalence just so you can slather a patina of "fairness" over your work. Even the best (especially the best?) journalists have to editorialize, whether they come to grips with that fact or not. The alternative would be to present an infinity of viewpoints on every topic one covers in any piece one writes. At some point one has to exercise discretion on what gets included and what doesn't, on what gets covered in detail and what doesn't. I don't think it's right or realistic to try to abdicate that part of one's journalistic responsibility.
logjam 18y ago
Google is taking a stand against bias. Bravo for them. They blew it on China - they may be getting this one right. "Impartiality" on whether to treat people with justice or not doesn't scan.
psyklic 18y ago
You're forgetting about Google's employees -- would you want to work for someone who refuses to take a stand on whether you can visit your partner in the hospital? Someone who provides full same-sex couple benefits in name only?
- defen 18y ago
  Why exactly should I be limited to only one partner?
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    You shouldn't. If we're going to redefine marriage as two people who love each other and want a long-term commitment, then there is no logical reason n=2 and 2 alone.
  - mdasen 18y ago
    Because both the government and corporations don't want to be giving you plus your 7 wives/husbands benefits. You shouldn't be limited to one partner in terms of love/sex/living together/whatnot if you so desire. Why the hell should I care? But let's say that your job offers healthcare for you and your partner - if you have 18 partners, that's a hell of a different cost from one partner. Likewise, let's say that you slip into a comma. Who has say over that feeding tube? That's already complicated! Let's say I'm some rich jerk trying to skirt the inheritance tax. Well, spouses are one way around it. Well, clearly my kids are also my spouses! Who gets to visit you at the hospital and who doesn't? Well, spouse 1 says your friend Joe should come, but spouse 2 hates Joe. Does it work by majority voting? What if they can't find all your spouses and you're dying and Joe really wants to see you? So, if you think of marriage as the government telling you that you can only love/have sex with/live with one person, it seems oppressive if you desire something else. If you see marriage as this standard government contract that says you are allowed to designate one other individual for partner benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. then it makes sense. The problem is that our society equates marriage with love/sex. Marriage should probably be seen as a contract. As such, you can see how it wouldn't really work to designate 6 people as having the right to determine whether you stay on life support. Yes, you could simply create individual contracts specifying everything that marriage entails, but that's tedious, expensive, prone to error and requires everyone who deals with you to have a lawyer to interpret that agreement - and they're not going to want to spend hundreds of dollars for a lawyer and tons more in liability to interpret your individualized contracts so they'll just deny you. Marriage is a standard convenience contract and shouldn't be confused with love or sex. //I'm really interested to see if you disagree with this or how you think things like benefits/hospital visitation/whatnot should work in poly relationships (yeah, sociology student ;-))
cbrinker 18y ago
Why should anyone, or a collective entity, sit idly by while things are being said and done that they do not believe in? Everyone is so indifferent to everyone else in this day in age. Why shouldn't Google (at least their executive board) be able to say that they feel strongly that gay marriage is a right that should be had? Your style of thinking is a dangerous subconcious attitude that has crept across our nation since the latter half of the 20th century. Stand up for what you believe, because if you don't you may lose out on more than just your rights.

jfarmer 18y ago

Yep, being brave is hard and has risks. Personally I'm glad Google is still willing to take them.

jwilliams 18y ago
I wasn't arguing on the stance - just their approach. There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward. I just don't see this as an action that would change people's minds. I just believe Google has much better avenues for advocacy than this approach.
- rms 18y ago
  I don't think this is about making an actual splash. Maybe it was done for the benefit of the Google employees? I would be surprised if this is noticed by the national media.
  - SapphireSun 18y ago
    Almost definitely. Brin stated:"...it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8." A company isn't just a profit machine. People live and work there to a degree. He probably saw some injustices in his company, and wanted to make a strong statement about how employees should be treated.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Perhaps secretly tilting all search results towards pro-gay-marriage websites would have been better? Of course they could also pour millions into campaigns. But I don't see why they should have to - they chose to make that statement in their blog, and maybe prefer to spend the millions on other things. What is wrong with that?
  - astine 18y ago
    That would be dishonest - not to mention a far graver threat to a free society than any legal bugaboo about what constitutes 'marriage.'
    - Tichy 18y ago
      I meant my statement as irony.
      - astine 18y ago
        I should hope so, but I'm too jaded to assume so anymore.
- chez17 18y ago
  "There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward." The reward is equal treatment for our gay brothers and sisters. The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down, not that I think they will. Are we so blinded by success and money here that we can't see a "reward" in helping a fellow human being?
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    > The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down Unfortunately, the law says that the Google Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If they decide to use the company in a way that is damaging to their shareholders' interests, they can be sued. Securities laws were introduced about eight decades ago to protect the small investor. The concern was that the small investor had little control over the actions of a company. Therefore, he had to be protected from the possibility that the managers might take his capital and use it for their own private purposes. The law makes no judgment about whether those private purposes are base or noble. If you want to sell shares to large amounts of people, then you are constrained by law to act in their best interest. Privately supporting equality for our gay brothers and sisters is one thing. Repurposing a publicly-held web services company to do so is quite another.
    - chez17 18y ago
      So if google came out against slavery or child molestation that would be a bad thing? I understand that the board has legal obligations, but to say that this is an issue that is even debatable is beyond ridiculous to me. Look at every companies "diversity" shot on their web page or brochure, companies like to show the public that they are caring and compassionate. This is no different.
      - chollida1 18y ago
        > So if google came out against slavery or child molestation that would be a bad thing? I didn't make the previous statement but I don't think that is what was meant. The point is that shareholder laws state that the purpose of the company is to make money for all shareholders, not to push a social agenda. A company can take a stand on issues but when profit and social issues collide the company is bound to follow profit.
patrickg-zill 18y ago
What is so brave about taking the politically correct view?
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  It's brave because we can all pat ourselves on each others' backs and talk about how brave it is. Don't question the mob. The mob is always right.
  - jfarmer 18y ago
    It might be PC on Hacker News, but it's certainly not even in the state of CA. Leave CA and the opposite view is the prevalent one. Leave da bubble! (And also vote no on Prop 8. kthx.)
- eggnet 18y ago
  The politically correct view is to dodge the issue. There are a large number of people that oppose a stance in either direction, so the best thing to do is say nothing and give nothing to either side to use as a reason to dislike you.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    I'd buy that if all the people opposed weren't being downmodded into the ground. To have a position from which dissent is not tolerated is the definition of PC. Hence the "correct" part of PC.
    - eggnet 18y ago
      I'll agree it's PC on Hacker News because apparently we have a large number of readers who don't like prop 8. As to the downmodding, there are other reasons that your comment could have been downmodded. Once you escape the bubble that is Hacker News you find an extremely large population of religious people that are for prop 8. So you have large populations for and against. Thus, either position is strongly supported and opposed, there is no correct position that will not be assaulted. Google didn't post on Hacker News, they posted on a public blog.

rms 18y ago

This idea that neutrality is something to strive for ends up marginalizing the correct point of view by giving equal time to the opposing point of view. In this case, the correct answer is obvious, that gay marraige should be permitted at the federal level. Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution -- it only ends up making the creationists look more legitimate. They don't deserve any attention or neutrality. In this case, Google has no bias because they are right.

brandnewlow 18y ago
So: "It's ok, because they're right." As a journalist (one who just finished interviewing someone I find personally despicable but who's done something newsworthy and interesting so merits coverage) I like to think that my readers are smart enough to suss out their own positions on the things I write about. It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." My job's to describe them and how they relate to one another and let the reader do his or her homework on which one they think is right. Drew Curtis has a great chapter in his book in which he rails against the media's penchant for giving equal time to "crazy people." He makes a great argument, but the problem is that it comes from an assumption that your readers are too lazy and dumb to make up their own minds about an issue, so we should be selective in how we treat different sides of an argument. That doesn't sit well.
- pius 18y ago
  It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." Right, but it's also not your job to draw false dichotomies and go out of your way to imply moral equivalence just so you can slather a patina of "fairness" over your work. Even the best (especially the best?) journalists have to editorialize, whether they come to grips with that fact or not. The alternative would be to present an infinity of viewpoints on every topic one covers in any piece one writes. At some point one has to exercise discretion on what gets included and what doesn't, on what gets covered in detail and what doesn't. I don't think it's right or realistic to try to abdicate that part of one's journalistic responsibility.

logjam 18y ago

Google is taking a stand against bias. Bravo for them. They blew it on China - they may be getting this one right. "Impartiality" on whether to treat people with justice or not doesn't scan.

psyklic 18y ago

You're forgetting about Google's employees -- would you want to work for someone who refuses to take a stand on whether you can visit your partner in the hospital? Someone who provides full same-sex couple benefits in name only?

defen 18y ago
Why exactly should I be limited to only one partner?
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  You shouldn't. If we're going to redefine marriage as two people who love each other and want a long-term commitment, then there is no logical reason n=2 and 2 alone.
- mdasen 18y ago
  Because both the government and corporations don't want to be giving you plus your 7 wives/husbands benefits. You shouldn't be limited to one partner in terms of love/sex/living together/whatnot if you so desire. Why the hell should I care? But let's say that your job offers healthcare for you and your partner - if you have 18 partners, that's a hell of a different cost from one partner. Likewise, let's say that you slip into a comma. Who has say over that feeding tube? That's already complicated! Let's say I'm some rich jerk trying to skirt the inheritance tax. Well, spouses are one way around it. Well, clearly my kids are also my spouses! Who gets to visit you at the hospital and who doesn't? Well, spouse 1 says your friend Joe should come, but spouse 2 hates Joe. Does it work by majority voting? What if they can't find all your spouses and you're dying and Joe really wants to see you? So, if you think of marriage as the government telling you that you can only love/have sex with/live with one person, it seems oppressive if you desire something else. If you see marriage as this standard government contract that says you are allowed to designate one other individual for partner benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. then it makes sense. The problem is that our society equates marriage with love/sex. Marriage should probably be seen as a contract. As such, you can see how it wouldn't really work to designate 6 people as having the right to determine whether you stay on life support. Yes, you could simply create individual contracts specifying everything that marriage entails, but that's tedious, expensive, prone to error and requires everyone who deals with you to have a lawyer to interpret that agreement - and they're not going to want to spend hundreds of dollars for a lawyer and tons more in liability to interpret your individualized contracts so they'll just deny you. Marriage is a standard convenience contract and shouldn't be confused with love or sex. //I'm really interested to see if you disagree with this or how you think things like benefits/hospital visitation/whatnot should work in poly relationships (yeah, sociology student ;-))

cbrinker 18y ago

Why should anyone, or a collective entity, sit idly by while things are being said and done that they do not believe in? Everyone is so indifferent to everyone else in this day in age. Why shouldn't Google (at least their executive board) be able to say that they feel strongly that gay marriage is a right that should be had? Your style of thinking is a dangerous subconcious attitude that has crept across our nation since the latter half of the 20th century. Stand up for what you believe, because if you don't you may lose out on more than just your rights.