4 ms·

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

by jfarmer 18y ago

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.

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

by jfarmer 18y ago

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

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.