5 ms·

Dear Sergey - You're surely aware of how divisive this issue is by just looking at the polling on this matter. By taking a hard stand on a very divisive issue

Dear Sergey - You're surely aware of how divisive this issue is by just looking at the polling on this matter. By taking a hard stand on a very divisive issue on behalf of your whole company, you are spending an enormous amount of your Google brand and influence on this issue. Right? According to gaydemographics.org, there are less than 100,000 gay couples in California. Let's assume all of them want to get married. Let's also assume, which I think is reasonable, that those gay couples wanting to get married are already cohabiting, have plenty of food, have shelter, have access to world class health care etc - and after this huge expenditure of Google influence and brand change, that will be the same - but they might have a marriage certificate. So, I just wonder why you chose that issue over this issue - that of AIDS orphans in Africa (unfortunately that label often hides the fact that these are real living breathing children). According to one.org, there are 12 million children who have lost BOTH parents to AIDS and are on their own now. This is a rapidly growing problem and there are estimated to be 25 million AIDS orphans by 2010. The sheer scale of this disaster is mind-boggling - yet it's mostly an information problem that needs to be solved. These children need parents. There are many couples around the world that are eager for children. Who better than Google to find a solution? For many of these children, adoption would mean hope where now there is only despair. As impactful as a marriage certificate would be to 100,000 gay couples in one of the richest states of the richest country - I'm guessing an adoption certificate would be tremendously more valuable to these children who are truly destitute. And I'm also guessing this would be much more inspirational and unifying to Google's share-holders and users. In deciding on where to spend your resources, I would suggest watching this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global... and reading this (the irony is not lost on me): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118124139854628069.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118124139854628069.html I can understand the draw to be edgy and controversial, but sometimes the causes which are most worthy also are the least popular. I applaud the work the Google Foundation is doing, don't get me wrong - but please consider the costs vs benefits to Google in working towards these two pieces of paper I mentioned: the gay marriage license for wealthy westerners or the adoption certificate for a destitute, yet living breathing child who has lost both parents in Africa. Cheers, Matt

bdr 18y ago
I don't think they took this stand to be edgy, or to allocate brand capital towards some public good. They took it because their employees wanted them to, complemented by a personal belief that it's the morally right position to take. Microsoft was going to take a similar position several years ago -- also from employee pressure -- but backed down. Edit: Here's what I'm referring to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501266.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04...
- mattjaynes 18y ago
  Yeah, my point is not that there's anything wrong with being edgy or allocating brand for some public good. Look at Bono and the One campaign for example. The point is that Sergey has many "public good" issues to choose from. Some issues will have far greater impact on relieving suffering in this world - especially for those who have little or no voice themselves. Some issues will have a much smaller impact, especially for those who already have a lot of power and are wealthy and very vocal about their issues. Some issues will be very divisive among Google shareholders and users. Some issues will be very uniting. It's really a matter of choosing what to do with your resources - and Google is a public company now - not a privately owned company by Larry and Sergey. Employees and shareholders are on both sides of this issue - what may be 'obviously the right thing to do' for some of his shareholders is 'obviously the wrong thing to do' for others. This is a divisive move for his company on an issue trying to help already very powerful and wealthy advocates. To spend brand capital so heavily and unilaterally like this when you could be doing so much good elsewhere and at the same time build unity among shareholders and strengthen your brand - just seems like a poor decision.
  - bdr 18y ago
    And my point is that they aren't doing this to maximize the public good under some moral calculus. Google has nothing to do with AIDS orphans in Africa.
    - mattjaynes 18y ago

bdr 18y ago

I don't think they took this stand to be edgy, or to allocate brand capital towards some public good. They took it because their employees wanted them to, complemented by a personal belief that it's the morally right position to take. Microsoft was going to take a similar position several years ago -- also from employee pressure -- but backed down. Edit: Here's what I'm referring to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501266.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04...

mattjaynes 18y ago
Yeah, my point is not that there's anything wrong with being edgy or allocating brand for some public good. Look at Bono and the One campaign for example. The point is that Sergey has many "public good" issues to choose from. Some issues will have far greater impact on relieving suffering in this world - especially for those who have little or no voice themselves. Some issues will have a much smaller impact, especially for those who already have a lot of power and are wealthy and very vocal about their issues. Some issues will be very divisive among Google shareholders and users. Some issues will be very uniting. It's really a matter of choosing what to do with your resources - and Google is a public company now - not a privately owned company by Larry and Sergey. Employees and shareholders are on both sides of this issue - what may be 'obviously the right thing to do' for some of his shareholders is 'obviously the wrong thing to do' for others. This is a divisive move for his company on an issue trying to help already very powerful and wealthy advocates. To spend brand capital so heavily and unilaterally like this when you could be doing so much good elsewhere and at the same time build unity among shareholders and strengthen your brand - just seems like a poor decision.
- bdr 18y ago
  And my point is that they aren't doing this to maximize the public good under some moral calculus. Google has nothing to do with AIDS orphans in Africa.
  - mattjaynes 18y ago