45 ms·

I spoke with a Google worker fired for protesting $1.2B Israel contract

212 points by KittenInABox 2y ago

Simon_ORourke 2y ago
[flagged]
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  To be fair, they long removed that line so you can't shove it in their face anymore.
  - Simon_ORourke 2y ago
    Yes they have, and that makes it even more of a reason to rub their corporate face in it.
  - thinkingemote 2y ago
    To be fair and accurate, they changed the line from "don't do evil" to (paraphrasing) "Googlers shouldn't don't be evil". Putting the responsibility onto the employee from a central core principle of the organisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Well that's why they got rid of the slogan. Plenty of people would not consider it to be evil.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    [flagged]
- wutwutwat 2y ago
  I’d imagine there was a serious reason for them removing that when they rebranded. Google has done military contracts from the get go though, using AI trained by plebs solving captchas. We’ve been complicit the entire time.
0898 2y ago
It’s noticeable that everybody in this protest is wearing a face mask, to the point it feels political. Could anybody explain what’s going on there?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- davidgerard 2y ago
  they're indoors, dude. COVID is still here.
  - throwaway920102 2y ago
    Serious question, what percentage of people working at a Google office wear a mask during work? I'm at an office in NYC of a smaller but household name tech company a few blocks away that used to do in-office mandatory nasal swab testing and masks at one point but now there are no precautions taken at all other than "if you're sick, you have to tell us and not come in". Curious if there's been a big bifurcation of covid precautions at workplaces that I'm just unaware of (since I only regularly enter one office).
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > Curious if there's been a big bifurcation of covid precautions at workplaces that I'm just unaware of... It's almost certain that nearly all workplaces are doing nearly nothing in regards to COVID precautions. (After all, (because of the nature of stock investment market) COVID precautions don't generate shareholder value, and certainly have negative ROI for their parent-company's/owner's/whatever real estate investment portfolio.) The variance will be due to a mixture of each individual's level of acceptable risk, and how clued-in they are about their local COVID situation, and COVID more generally.
      - Workaccount2 2y ago
        COVID is here to stay, it is now an endemic virus like influenza or the array of "common cold" viruses. You are free to wear a mask and socially distance for the rest of your life, I'm sure in 1930 you could still find holdouts from the influenza pandemic of 1917 still freaking out about it. But society at large has just accepted it and is back to carrying on like normal.
redleader55 2y ago
Why is no one talking about the fact they locked themselves in the CTO's office and this is why they were fired?
- orlp 2y ago
  > KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right? > IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely indiscriminate—people who had just walked by just to say hello and maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren't affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see their badge and they were among the 28 fired. So is this a lie?
  - Kalium 2y ago
    "Lie", "incorrect", and "incomplete information" are very different things. Ibraheem clearly believes this to be true, but that is not the same as it being so.
    - itsdrewmiller 2y ago
      It seems like you are implying it is incorrect or incomplete - do you have any evidence to the contrary or context to add?
      - Kalium 2y ago
        I'm not implying anything of the sort. My point is that an unsupported assertion should not be treated as a well-supported truth. All we know right now is what a single person believes. I am not questioning what Ibraheem believes. I'm saying that statements of fact require support.
        mandmandam 2y ago
        Ok, but why question only the "statement of fact" made in response to the "statement of fact" that "they locked themselves in the CTO's office and this is why they were fired?" Why value a random HN stranger's account over the account of an employee who sacrificed a lucrative career to bring attention to this? Is it perhaps because you ideologically agree with one "statement of fact" over the other? Or is it more self interested?
asylteltine 2y ago
[dead]
smcl 2y ago
They should get in touch with Elon Musk, I seem to recall he promised to pay the legal fees for anyone fired for their political beliefs...
- tomschlick 2y ago
  No one here got fired for their political beliefs. They got fired for expressing those beliefs at work, on company time while disrupting the work of that company and then refusing to leave when told to do so.
ancorevard 2y ago
The Overton window has changed. Imagine Google saying this during peak BLM. "But ultimately we are a workplace and our policies and expectations are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics. This is too important a moment as a company for us to be distracted." There is hope here that Google will not fade into irrelevance.
- Ajay-p 2y ago
  Has it, and which Overton window are you thinking? The public tolerance for (disruptive) protest, corporate tolerance for political activism in the workplace, or.. ? If I had to venture a guess, I would say the window has shifted towards political burnout. People may be more comfortable shutting down disruptions like these because they are burned out, and feel the disruption/protests/activism has gone too far.
  - ancorevard 2y ago
    Remember how much public beatings Coinbase received when they announced they were going to be a mission and merit driven company?
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      Like the top two comments being in support of Coinbase's mission first declaration? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24610267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24610267
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  >Imagine Google saying this during peak BLM. If Google had employees protesting against BLM they would also had been fired.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Google fired that guy who wrote the gender manifesto so its not like this is anything new really
paxys 2y ago
I partially blame Google for fostering an environment where these employees genuinely thought that they could spend their working time advocating for social causes and staging protests while staying happily employed and cashing their paychecks/vesting RSUs. No, Google isn't "fascist" for firing you because you barricaded yourself in the CTO's office, intimidated and threatened fellow employees and live streamed the entire charade. Your corporate job isn't a democracy. If the company continues cleaning house and gets back to their mission then maybe there's still hope for them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- theptip 2y ago
  Do you have references for the “intimidated and threatened” bit? Is there a claim it went beyond a peaceful protest?
  - paxys 2y ago
    If you go in to the office and there are dozens of people sitting at your desk waving flags and having political protests and refusing to let you enter and do your job, what would you call that exactly? Is that a safe working environment? How do you think an Israeli employee in that same office would have felt on the day of the protests? These protests don't happen in a vacuum. The entire purpose is to disrupt day to day work and make people take notice.
    - courseofaction 2y ago
      Is this a problem? Having your country commit genocide should be very confronting. Is there a particular right to defend this?
      - Scarblac 2y ago
        Despite confident sounding statements like that, there's nowhere near consensus that genocide is being committed in this war.
nocoiner 2y ago
From the article: “It began in 2021 and provides cloud computing services to Israel—specifically, we’ve recently learned, to the Israeli Ministry of Defense—and though it has faced internal criticism since its inception, efforts against it have naturally intensified since October 7th.” Criticism has intensified since October 7th? Since the day that was marked by the assault, kidnapping and massacre of thousands of civilians initiated by Hamas? That October 7th? There’s plenty to criticize about Israel’s campaign in Gaza, but tying objections back to the original date of the Hamas attack is pretty gross.
- hedora 2y ago
  Yeah; according to an IDF report on intercepted Hamas documents (so, both sides agree on this; nothing here should be controversial today and it was well-understood by leadership on both sides on that day): - Hamas had a < 20% approval rating before the attacks, and couldn’t recruit. If no action was taken, they’d fade into obscurity, and the conflict would finally end in a few years. - Their plan was to force Israel to do something so bad that it would escalate into a regional conflict, and allow them to recruit again. - Hamas’ goal was to get Israel to level Gaza. They estimated that three days of slaughtering civilians would be enough to get Israel to do something unforgivable in response. - Israel reacted after one day. At this point Hamas had won, and stopped their initial campaign. - Hamas now has a > 70% approval rating, and can easily recruit, so things are going as well as they could hope, organizationally. My opinion (I can’t come up with anything else that matches the facts): The military leadership on both sides of this conflict should be tried and convicted for war crimes, including genocide. The conflict is happening because the military wings of both governments are trying to consolidate power and secure funding/resources. The Israeli and Palestinian civilians (and Israeli conscripts — they still have a draft) are the victims here. Their only hope is that they’d band together as part of a peace movement and replace their own governments (via an election in Israel), but, predictably, mob rule and fear have strengthened the right wing militants on both sides.
  - everforward 2y ago
    Naomi Wolf is as prescient today as she was in 2007: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_Letter_of_Warning_to_a_Young_Patriot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_Letter_o... The easiest way to build internal cohesion is to invent or create an external enemy and distract everyone with that. I tend to agree, though. The conflict feels manufactured by the respective militaries to distract from internal issues. It’s a waste of human life to cover up dysfunctional governing. How’s Netanyahu’s corruption trial going? Curious how that timing works out, haven’t heard much about since Israel started leveling Gaza… That’s not to say Hamas is better, I just don’t expect much of them. They’re not exactly shy about speaking their mind.
uneekname 2y ago
I see that this post was flagged, I am curious why and hope we can discuss that. I had not heard of this group at Google nor the story of their arrest/termination, and I found the account to be interesting and worthy of a spot on HN.
- elAhmo 2y ago
  Purpose of flagging it to not have a discussion about this as it sheds a light about what is happening.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    If you browse HN's recent history, you'll find that nearly every single "Google/Israel" related article that gained any traction has gotten flagged by readers. People are clearly abusing "flag" as a mega-downvote to bury discussions they don't want to see happening. Pretty sad. I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, but I don't think this is appropriate behavior here. HN's "flamewar detector" should be enough to quickly move these stories off the front page if they get too hot. Why also flag?
    - jules-jules 2y ago
      Dang has to rescue pretty much every single Israel post as they are getting mass flagged to oblivion.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - thegrim33 2y ago
      No, I flag them because, like this thread, 99% of comments are just political/social warfare and has nothing to do with technology. It's just an extension of the culture war. You can go on Reddit or Facebook or basically anywhere else on the internet to do your cultural warfare. Can we have a single place left where we don't fall into that pit?
      - 2y ago
elAhmo 2y ago
A lot of the tech world if filled with hypocrisy. Many people were vocal in saying that one country has a right to defend themselves after an attack of an actor that killed their citizens. Not saying the same thing when another country has its own nationals killed in an attack is a clear example of double-standards. Similar is happening here. Companies are clear to express support and stand with one country, but quick to fire and say 'please stay out of politics' when support is express for another country.
- cbHXBY1D 2y ago
  Google employees didn't join to build weapons. Google lied to them about the nature of Project Nimbus, saying it was just for civilian use. This was proven to be a lie: https://time.com/6966102/google-contract-israel-defense-ministry-gaza-war/ https://time.com/6966102/google-contract-israel-defense-mini... Google has a set of AI principles: https://ai.google/responsibility/principles/ https://ai.google/responsibility/principles/ These include: > AI applications we will not pursue > In addition to the above objectives, we will not design or deploy AI in the following application areas: > 1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints. > 2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. > 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. > 4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights. The contract goes against those principles. Employees rightfully speak out about this and stonewalled.
  - pavon 2y ago
    I don't see any new revelations in that Time article. Project Nimbus from the beginning was publicly announced as providing cloud services to all divisions of the Israeli government, but at commercial security level. So the Defense Ministry is using it, but not for anything sensitive, certainly not building weapons. This is akin to Microsoft providing Office 365 to a military. In my mind there is nothing controversial about the service being provided, just who it is being provided to. That is, at some point a government's actions become so bad that doing any business with them becomes unjustifiable. Israel's conduct during this conflict has certainly pushed them in that direction.
Workaccount2 2y ago
Hopefully google is turning a new leaf, getting trigger happy with purging all the zealots. They desperately need to get back to focusing on tech, not twitterverse social issues.
- uoaei 2y ago
  You're implying Palestine only exists online?
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - klyrs 2y ago
      > I'm implying that the presentation of "facts" that would get a bunch of rainbow flag waving leftists to support a group of right wing ultra conservative theists only exists online. Leftists are still supporting the Israeli government? News to me. And funny thing about your reference to rainbow flags. We queers were scapegoated in the Holocaust too. Only, the international community didn't think we deserved our own country, or much of any right to life, for that matter. If only... it were possible to believe in the rights of people, without giving full-throated support for the government they live under. I believe that Palestinians, Israelis, Jews, and Muslims all have a right to life and peace. That just ain't the same as supporting Netanyahu's government, nor Hamas. But speaking of supporting Hamas! Netanyahu has been supporting Hamas for decades now. So why are people so critical of the left? Netanyahu is one of yours! And he's got a helluva lot more influence than some protesters in a corporate office.
      - Workaccount2 2y ago
        [flagged]
        klyrs 2y ago
        [flagged]
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
The fact that these entitled employees felt it was appropriate to bring their personal politics to the workplace shows how bad Google’s culture really is, and why there is bias in every product they make - not just the obvious ones like Gemini but also older things like Search. On most of these activist issues, the other side doesn’t have the same safety to speak up. This firing is a positive move but Google has a long ways to go still. As an aside, the person interviewed here is a 23 year old that is barely out of college. Statements like these show how naive workplace activists often are: > Because before then, we were Google employees with active badges who had every right to be in that workplace. It took them until putting us on administrative leave that they could actually get the cops to come in. > It was a complete overreaction on Google's part to not only fire everyone who was and wasn't involved, but then also threaten everyone else in the company who would dare think to stand up against this. And people are taking notice that it feels like a very fascist environment. And yet it’s voices like these that feel most comfortable to push their personal politics on others in the workplace.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > The fact that these entitled employees felt it was appropriate to bring their personal politics to the workplace... I dunno. I expect the first shot was fired with the Google+ Real Names policy, and the "interesting" exemptions made to it for particular individuals (Vivek "Vic" Gundotra, included). It's kinda been downhill from there.
  - matrix87 2y ago
    > I expect the first shot was fired with the Google+ Real Names policy, What is this about?
sbarre 2y ago
Pretty disappointed to see this topic get flagged.
aaa_aaa 2y ago
I always wondered why did google involved with this project. It's a small amount of money and risky considering backlash, it is supposedly public use related. Why not leave it to usual guys who would jot question shady deals? What compelled Google when it came to state of Israel?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dunekid 2y ago
    I think you have a point. We should look at ICJ rulings, WCK staff and other Journalists' killing, the destruction of hospitals, schools, even blowing up museums, in Gaza. Also the detention of thousands of people, including minors. And maybe, just maybe, sanction and cut off the apartheid regime. Google can then pull out much easily.
  - no_exit 2y ago
    > Iran (who is thought to have planned the Oct 7 massacre) There is no credible evidence of this.
- Kalium 2y ago
  Every contract with a national government buying whole data centers for cloud services is a major one with big numbers attached. This is not a small amount of money and the backlash to date has yet to be impactful. If you want to be a major cloud player - and Google does - you need to be willing to do what other major cloud players do and sell to national governments. AWS, Oracle, and other hyperscalers all do.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    There's a difference between "selling to governments" and "selling to governments who are actively committing genocide".
looknee 2y ago
Why is this post flagged?
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Sabinus 2y ago
  HN tends to do that to any topic associated with intense emotion. Hard to have constructive discussion in threads like this.
mingus88 2y ago
Hard to take this person seriously as they equate corporate leadership with fascism Hey folks, every job you will get will be run by an owner that does things their way. If you are outspoken in disagreement they have every right to replace you with an employee that is ok with how they do business This person’s explicit goal was to make a disturbance and get arrested. I can’t think of a single workplace that wouldn’t let you go if that’s what you decided to do instead of your job duties
- archagon 2y ago
  Not if you work in a cooperative. Maybe we should explore forms of corporate leadership that are not quite so authoritarian.
  - lotsoweiners 2y ago
    Knock yourself out exploring them while the rest of us continue to clock in and collect a paycheck. Once your concept has been proven for potential profitability then one can assume owners and shareholders will demand your ideas be used in their companies a la AI and the WWW.
teddyh 2y ago
Most interesting fact from the article: > KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right? > IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely indiscriminate—people who had just walked by just to say hello and maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren't affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see their badge and they were among the 28 fired. > They had to reach out after the fact to tell us, hey, I was impacted by this. Like we had no reason to suspect that someone who wasn't affiliated with us or wasn't even wearing a shirt or anything related to our sit-in—we had no reason to think that they would be retaliated against. So Google knew everyone who even talked to these people.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  Which definition of the word "fact" are you using?
  - teddyh 2y ago
    Fact as in “a piece of information, presumed to be true unless conflicting information is presented”?
    - paxys 2y ago
      Ok, here's a fact – all these employees were protesting and Google fired them with reason. Are you going to presume that is true?
      - teddyh 2y ago
        Unfortunately, a public interview with a leader of a group does have more trustworthiness than a random forum comment, like yours. If, on the other hand, Google came out with a public statement saying that all 28 of these people were part of the protest, then that would create some room for doubt and warrant further independent investigation.
amitbat 2y ago
Misinformation all over. Social media must be regulated for the sake of the free countries, being overtaken by tsunami of self-distructing information. Save yourself
egberts1 2y ago
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." -- Joshua, W.O.P.R., "War Games"
kelseyfrog 2y ago
I can't help but imagine in 50 years that a parallel between Google circa 2023 and IBM circa 1933 is thought of as a historical rhyme.
tonfreed 2y ago
This is the result of civil disobedience. He wanted to raise awareness of Google's dealings with the Israeli defence force, this is probably the best thing that could have happened, because all eyes are on the cause now. He's either genuinely passionate and has taken what he sees as a moral stand for a company he probably didn't want to work for, or his protest is purely performative and he's fucked up pretty badly. My money is on the second option, but without being able to read his thoughts we'll never know
- paxys 2y ago
  We can read some of his thoughts in this very interview. He did not expect Google to fire him for his actions.
matrix87 2y ago
I'm sure the people involved are utterly irreplaceable. They really showed google with this one!
RickJWagner 2y ago
[flagged]
pedalpete 2y ago
This article ignores the vandalism and and that co-workers felt threatened. There is such thing as a sit-in which is disruptive, and makes the point, but why should somebody who comes to work feel threatened by a co-worker? That's not acceptable, no matter what the belief is. And of course, if you vandalise your employers property, of course you should expect to be fired. https://californiaglobe.com/fr/google-fires-28-for-anti-israel-sit-in-at-work/ https://californiaglobe.com/fr/google-fires-28-for-anti-isra...
- frob 2y ago
  Could you expand on the points of vandalism and threats? The article you linked to only had some vague corporate speak about vandalism, which could easily refer to the banner they hung. The only reference to anyone feeling threatened was a reference to another employee who "felt scared," but it doesn't say the protestor were doing anything threatening.
- NicoJuicy 2y ago
  Yeah, I call it the TikTok army
- deanCommie 2y ago
  While I don't want to downplay anyone's feeling of safety, in the current climate, some Jewish Zionists (A phrase i'm choosing deliberately, as a person who is Jewish, but anti-Zionist) have weaponized accusations of anti-semitism to suggest that any discussion of Palestinian statehood, support for peace in Gaza, or even the very presence of a keffiyeh are inherently anti-semitic and make them feel threatened. This is not happening in a vacuum. It is ALSO unfortunately true that whenever the issue of Palestinian statehood becomes magnified some activists use this as an excuse to promote all sorts of classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists and start raging about Jewish people indiscriminately, not just the Apartheid system. (Much in the same way that some BLM protestors take things too far and start accusing all white people indiscriminately of racism). But it is happening. Since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh is inherently associated with Yasser Arafat, many uneducated people innocently incorrectly assume that it is inherently a piece of terrorist paraphernalia, and as a result feel unsafe just from it's mere presence at peaceful demonstrations. Likewise, "from the river to the sea" and chants like it also imply a jewish genocide for them, and make them feel unsafe. I personally believe that particular chant is more harmful than helpful, and I likewise cringe at people wearing keffiyeh's as a means of solidarity. I don't care about what people THINK it means, it is perceived by those whose opinions they must change the most (unengaged moderates) as a symbol of terrorism for justifiable reasons. (Much like the Nazi Swastika's original hindu origins don't matter anymore in any context outside of India, sorry) So. It's complex. It's nuanced. I don't know what happened. But I wouldn't assume that just because someone "felt threatened" by this protest that the protestors actually did anything indefensible. Others have already touched upon the point that "vandalism" can be defined however any party wishes it to be. My 4 year old drawing in chalk on a sidewalk could be considered vandalism, if someone wanted to. In Google's case, using scotch tape to attach a sign to a door and lightly scuffing some of the paint as a result, could be considered "vandalism" for the purpose of an HR-justifiable firing. This is no different than "assault" legally being any physical contact. Tapping someone on the shoulder could be "assault" if it's deemed aggressive and unwanted. Vandalism is no different.
PM_me_your_math 2y ago
[dead]
myrandomcomment 2y ago
You 100% have the right to protest. What you do not have is the right to use your access to the company building to protest in said company building. Feel free to stage a protest out front and I 100% support that. If you truly object to what your employer does then quit. In this case you are highly paid and skilled talent that is not stuck in your job. I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people have.
- tw04 2y ago
  Ultimately a whole new generation is finding out about the value of a union. You don’t need collective bargaining rights up until the point you disagree with the company you work for and decide to vocalize it. Then you find out how few rights you have.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    I know of no union in the USA that would be able to get its members off the hook for a sit in on an executive office. The unions, however, would at least have counsel on what its members could do to protest, but only for collective action, I’m not sure anti-Israeli sentiment would meet that bar. Usually it’s for economic things, like pay and benefits, that a majority of the union members could actually agree on.
    - tw04 2y ago
      The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members off" from this.
      - Clubber 2y ago
        >The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members off" from this. Ya but that was coordinated by the union for the benefit of the union, right? These people are going rogue. I don't think the UAW would support them either.
jgalt212 2y ago
[flagged]
johnthescott 2y ago
"who was and wasn't involved" pretty big set of folks.
DerKozaken 2y ago
Well I guess you can work for google and still be stupid enough to believe the Palestinians in Gaza are experiencing a genocide and to think that Israel is an non equal state for arabs, so so stupid people who never been to Israel. Radical islam is in their blood, being preached from young age to hate jews and Israel, no peace and no love in their hearts, you the violence and hare in their eyes in the pro Palestinian protests. You allready feel the terror in the streets in europe, the west is next...
protomolecule 2y ago
"I'm Syrian. I'm Muslim. But I'm human, and that should be enough for anyone to have a connection to Palestine." By this logic being Jewish is enough for Page and Brin to have connection to Israel.
alephknoll 2y ago
Google workers protest China contract. Sentiment of top comments : 'If you work at Google and you have participated in this protest: Thank you.' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17776276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17776276 Google workers protest Israel contract. 'If the company continues cleaning house and gets back to their mission then maybe there's still hope for them.' Hmmm... Something is amiss. Protest china, thank you. Protest israel, you deserved to be fired.
beefnugs 2y ago
Learn from others mistakes: the real move is to put backdoors in AI that automatically and irreversibly choose less and less murder targets
welzel 2y ago
Google is not a social movement, it is not a democratic social structure or a family. It is a business with the purpose of generating value. Firing activists who are delusional enough to challenge senior management in public is a good move. Ensure to fire anybody even remotely involved with this activists. Make sure that people understand that their job is not to have political opinions during working hours and even of the clock that they cannot opposite the official position of the company without running a risk of getting fired. If you belief that google is "fascist" or "undemocratic" are are delusional; google cannot be "fascist" or "democratic" because it is a company. You do not elect the CEO of google and you are not a citizen of google. It is a company, nothing more, nothing less. If you belief that a company should be democratic: you are free to create your own company, take your own money or find investors who share your beliefs. Put your money where your beliefs are. Activism is incredible cheap and it is long overdue that companies like google stop pretending to be a "family" or "democratic".

212 points by KittenInABox 2y ago

Simon_ORourke 2y ago

[flagged]

Rinzler89 2y ago
To be fair, they long removed that line so you can't shove it in their face anymore.
- Simon_ORourke 2y ago
  Yes they have, and that makes it even more of a reason to rub their corporate face in it.
- thinkingemote 2y ago
  To be fair and accurate, they changed the line from "don't do evil" to (paraphrasing) "Googlers shouldn't don't be evil". Putting the responsibility onto the employee from a central core principle of the organisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
IshKebab 2y ago
Well that's why they got rid of the slogan. Plenty of people would not consider it to be evil.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  [flagged]
wutwutwat 2y ago
I’d imagine there was a serious reason for them removing that when they rebranded. Google has done military contracts from the get go though, using AI trained by plebs solving captchas. We’ve been complicit the entire time.

0898 2y ago

It’s noticeable that everybody in this protest is wearing a face mask, to the point it feels political. Could anybody explain what’s going on there?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
davidgerard 2y ago
they're indoors, dude. COVID is still here.
- throwaway920102 2y ago
  Serious question, what percentage of people working at a Google office wear a mask during work? I'm at an office in NYC of a smaller but household name tech company a few blocks away that used to do in-office mandatory nasal swab testing and masks at one point but now there are no precautions taken at all other than "if you're sick, you have to tell us and not come in". Curious if there's been a big bifurcation of covid precautions at workplaces that I'm just unaware of (since I only regularly enter one office).
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > Curious if there's been a big bifurcation of covid precautions at workplaces that I'm just unaware of... It's almost certain that nearly all workplaces are doing nearly nothing in regards to COVID precautions. (After all, (because of the nature of stock investment market) COVID precautions don't generate shareholder value, and certainly have negative ROI for their parent-company's/owner's/whatever real estate investment portfolio.) The variance will be due to a mixture of each individual's level of acceptable risk, and how clued-in they are about their local COVID situation, and COVID more generally.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      COVID is here to stay, it is now an endemic virus like influenza or the array of "common cold" viruses. You are free to wear a mask and socially distance for the rest of your life, I'm sure in 1930 you could still find holdouts from the influenza pandemic of 1917 still freaking out about it. But society at large has just accepted it and is back to carrying on like normal.

redleader55 2y ago

Why is no one talking about the fact they locked themselves in the CTO's office and this is why they were fired?

orlp 2y ago
> KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right? > IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely indiscriminate—people who had just walked by just to say hello and maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren't affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see their badge and they were among the 28 fired. So is this a lie?
- Kalium 2y ago
  "Lie", "incorrect", and "incomplete information" are very different things. Ibraheem clearly believes this to be true, but that is not the same as it being so.
  - itsdrewmiller 2y ago
    It seems like you are implying it is incorrect or incomplete - do you have any evidence to the contrary or context to add?
    - Kalium 2y ago
      I'm not implying anything of the sort. My point is that an unsupported assertion should not be treated as a well-supported truth. All we know right now is what a single person believes. I am not questioning what Ibraheem believes. I'm saying that statements of fact require support.
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        Ok, but why question only the "statement of fact" made in response to the "statement of fact" that "they locked themselves in the CTO's office and this is why they were fired?" Why value a random HN stranger's account over the account of an employee who sacrificed a lucrative career to bring attention to this? Is it perhaps because you ideologically agree with one "statement of fact" over the other? Or is it more self interested?

asylteltine 2y ago

[dead]

smcl 2y ago

They should get in touch with Elon Musk, I seem to recall he promised to pay the legal fees for anyone fired for their political beliefs...

tomschlick 2y ago
No one here got fired for their political beliefs. They got fired for expressing those beliefs at work, on company time while disrupting the work of that company and then refusing to leave when told to do so.

ancorevard 2y ago

The Overton window has changed. Imagine Google saying this during peak BLM. "But ultimately we are a workplace and our policies and expectations are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics. This is too important a moment as a company for us to be distracted." There is hope here that Google will not fade into irrelevance.

Ajay-p 2y ago
Has it, and which Overton window are you thinking? The public tolerance for (disruptive) protest, corporate tolerance for political activism in the workplace, or.. ? If I had to venture a guess, I would say the window has shifted towards political burnout. People may be more comfortable shutting down disruptions like these because they are burned out, and feel the disruption/protests/activism has gone too far.
- ancorevard 2y ago
  Remember how much public beatings Coinbase received when they announced they were going to be a mission and merit driven company?
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Like the top two comments being in support of Coinbase's mission first declaration? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24610267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24610267
TiredOfLife 2y ago
>Imagine Google saying this during peak BLM. If Google had employees protesting against BLM they would also had been fired.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
Google fired that guy who wrote the gender manifesto so its not like this is anything new really

paxys 2y ago

I partially blame Google for fostering an environment where these employees genuinely thought that they could spend their working time advocating for social causes and staging protests while staying happily employed and cashing their paychecks/vesting RSUs. No, Google isn't "fascist" for firing you because you barricaded yourself in the CTO's office, intimidated and threatened fellow employees and live streamed the entire charade. Your corporate job isn't a democracy. If the company continues cleaning house and gets back to their mission then maybe there's still hope for them.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
theptip 2y ago
Do you have references for the “intimidated and threatened” bit? Is there a claim it went beyond a peaceful protest?
- paxys 2y ago
  If you go in to the office and there are dozens of people sitting at your desk waving flags and having political protests and refusing to let you enter and do your job, what would you call that exactly? Is that a safe working environment? How do you think an Israeli employee in that same office would have felt on the day of the protests? These protests don't happen in a vacuum. The entire purpose is to disrupt day to day work and make people take notice.
  - courseofaction 2y ago
    Is this a problem? Having your country commit genocide should be very confronting. Is there a particular right to defend this?
    - Scarblac 2y ago
      Despite confident sounding statements like that, there's nowhere near consensus that genocide is being committed in this war.

nocoiner 2y ago

From the article: “It began in 2021 and provides cloud computing services to Israel—specifically, we’ve recently learned, to the Israeli Ministry of Defense—and though it has faced internal criticism since its inception, efforts against it have naturally intensified since October 7th.” Criticism has intensified since October 7th? Since the day that was marked by the assault, kidnapping and massacre of thousands of civilians initiated by Hamas? That October 7th? There’s plenty to criticize about Israel’s campaign in Gaza, but tying objections back to the original date of the Hamas attack is pretty gross.

hedora 2y ago
Yeah; according to an IDF report on intercepted Hamas documents (so, both sides agree on this; nothing here should be controversial today and it was well-understood by leadership on both sides on that day): - Hamas had a < 20% approval rating before the attacks, and couldn’t recruit. If no action was taken, they’d fade into obscurity, and the conflict would finally end in a few years. - Their plan was to force Israel to do something so bad that it would escalate into a regional conflict, and allow them to recruit again. - Hamas’ goal was to get Israel to level Gaza. They estimated that three days of slaughtering civilians would be enough to get Israel to do something unforgivable in response. - Israel reacted after one day. At this point Hamas had won, and stopped their initial campaign. - Hamas now has a > 70% approval rating, and can easily recruit, so things are going as well as they could hope, organizationally. My opinion (I can’t come up with anything else that matches the facts): The military leadership on both sides of this conflict should be tried and convicted for war crimes, including genocide. The conflict is happening because the military wings of both governments are trying to consolidate power and secure funding/resources. The Israeli and Palestinian civilians (and Israeli conscripts — they still have a draft) are the victims here. Their only hope is that they’d band together as part of a peace movement and replace their own governments (via an election in Israel), but, predictably, mob rule and fear have strengthened the right wing militants on both sides.
- everforward 2y ago
  Naomi Wolf is as prescient today as she was in 2007: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_Letter_of_Warning_to_a_Young_Patriot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_Letter_o... The easiest way to build internal cohesion is to invent or create an external enemy and distract everyone with that. I tend to agree, though. The conflict feels manufactured by the respective militaries to distract from internal issues. It’s a waste of human life to cover up dysfunctional governing. How’s Netanyahu’s corruption trial going? Curious how that timing works out, haven’t heard much about since Israel started leveling Gaza… That’s not to say Hamas is better, I just don’t expect much of them. They’re not exactly shy about speaking their mind.

uneekname 2y ago

I see that this post was flagged, I am curious why and hope we can discuss that. I had not heard of this group at Google nor the story of their arrest/termination, and I found the account to be interesting and worthy of a spot on HN.

elAhmo 2y ago
Purpose of flagging it to not have a discussion about this as it sheds a light about what is happening.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  If you browse HN's recent history, you'll find that nearly every single "Google/Israel" related article that gained any traction has gotten flagged by readers. People are clearly abusing "flag" as a mega-downvote to bury discussions they don't want to see happening. Pretty sad. I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, but I don't think this is appropriate behavior here. HN's "flamewar detector" should be enough to quickly move these stories off the front page if they get too hot. Why also flag?
  - jules-jules 2y ago
    Dang has to rescue pretty much every single Israel post as they are getting mass flagged to oblivion.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - thegrim33 2y ago
    No, I flag them because, like this thread, 99% of comments are just political/social warfare and has nothing to do with technology. It's just an extension of the culture war. You can go on Reddit or Facebook or basically anywhere else on the internet to do your cultural warfare. Can we have a single place left where we don't fall into that pit?
    - 2y ago

elAhmo 2y ago

A lot of the tech world if filled with hypocrisy. Many people were vocal in saying that one country has a right to defend themselves after an attack of an actor that killed their citizens. Not saying the same thing when another country has its own nationals killed in an attack is a clear example of double-standards. Similar is happening here. Companies are clear to express support and stand with one country, but quick to fire and say 'please stay out of politics' when support is express for another country.

cbHXBY1D 2y ago
Google employees didn't join to build weapons. Google lied to them about the nature of Project Nimbus, saying it was just for civilian use. This was proven to be a lie: https://time.com/6966102/google-contract-israel-defense-ministry-gaza-war/ https://time.com/6966102/google-contract-israel-defense-mini... Google has a set of AI principles: https://ai.google/responsibility/principles/ https://ai.google/responsibility/principles/ These include: > AI applications we will not pursue > In addition to the above objectives, we will not design or deploy AI in the following application areas: > 1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints. > 2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. > 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. > 4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights. The contract goes against those principles. Employees rightfully speak out about this and stonewalled.
- pavon 2y ago
  I don't see any new revelations in that Time article. Project Nimbus from the beginning was publicly announced as providing cloud services to all divisions of the Israeli government, but at commercial security level. So the Defense Ministry is using it, but not for anything sensitive, certainly not building weapons. This is akin to Microsoft providing Office 365 to a military. In my mind there is nothing controversial about the service being provided, just who it is being provided to. That is, at some point a government's actions become so bad that doing any business with them becomes unjustifiable. Israel's conduct during this conflict has certainly pushed them in that direction.

Workaccount2 2y ago

Hopefully google is turning a new leaf, getting trigger happy with purging all the zealots. They desperately need to get back to focusing on tech, not twitterverse social issues.

uoaei 2y ago
You're implying Palestine only exists online?
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - klyrs 2y ago
    > I'm implying that the presentation of "facts" that would get a bunch of rainbow flag waving leftists to support a group of right wing ultra conservative theists only exists online. Leftists are still supporting the Israeli government? News to me. And funny thing about your reference to rainbow flags. We queers were scapegoated in the Holocaust too. Only, the international community didn't think we deserved our own country, or much of any right to life, for that matter. If only... it were possible to believe in the rights of people, without giving full-throated support for the government they live under. I believe that Palestinians, Israelis, Jews, and Muslims all have a right to life and peace. That just ain't the same as supporting Netanyahu's government, nor Hamas. But speaking of supporting Hamas! Netanyahu has been supporting Hamas for decades now. So why are people so critical of the left? Netanyahu is one of yours! And he's got a helluva lot more influence than some protesters in a corporate office.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - klyrs 2y ago
        [flagged]

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

The fact that these entitled employees felt it was appropriate to bring their personal politics to the workplace shows how bad Google’s culture really is, and why there is bias in every product they make - not just the obvious ones like Gemini but also older things like Search. On most of these activist issues, the other side doesn’t have the same safety to speak up. This firing is a positive move but Google has a long ways to go still. As an aside, the person interviewed here is a 23 year old that is barely out of college. Statements like these show how naive workplace activists often are: > Because before then, we were Google employees with active badges who had every right to be in that workplace. It took them until putting us on administrative leave that they could actually get the cops to come in. > It was a complete overreaction on Google's part to not only fire everyone who was and wasn't involved, but then also threaten everyone else in the company who would dare think to stand up against this. And people are taking notice that it feels like a very fascist environment. And yet it’s voices like these that feel most comfortable to push their personal politics on others in the workplace.

simoncion 2y ago
> The fact that these entitled employees felt it was appropriate to bring their personal politics to the workplace... I dunno. I expect the first shot was fired with the Google+ Real Names policy, and the "interesting" exemptions made to it for particular individuals (Vivek "Vic" Gundotra, included). It's kinda been downhill from there.
- matrix87 2y ago
  > I expect the first shot was fired with the Google+ Real Names policy, What is this about?

sbarre 2y ago

Pretty disappointed to see this topic get flagged.

aaa_aaa 2y ago

I always wondered why did google involved with this project. It's a small amount of money and risky considering backlash, it is supposedly public use related. Why not leave it to usual guys who would jot question shady deals? What compelled Google when it came to state of Israel?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- dunekid 2y ago
  I think you have a point. We should look at ICJ rulings, WCK staff and other Journalists' killing, the destruction of hospitals, schools, even blowing up museums, in Gaza. Also the detention of thousands of people, including minors. And maybe, just maybe, sanction and cut off the apartheid regime. Google can then pull out much easily.
- no_exit 2y ago
  > Iran (who is thought to have planned the Oct 7 massacre) There is no credible evidence of this.
Kalium 2y ago
Every contract with a national government buying whole data centers for cloud services is a major one with big numbers attached. This is not a small amount of money and the backlash to date has yet to be impactful. If you want to be a major cloud player - and Google does - you need to be willing to do what other major cloud players do and sell to national governments. AWS, Oracle, and other hyperscalers all do.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  There's a difference between "selling to governments" and "selling to governments who are actively committing genocide".

looknee 2y ago

Why is this post flagged?

JohnMakin 2y ago
[flagged]
Sabinus 2y ago
HN tends to do that to any topic associated with intense emotion. Hard to have constructive discussion in threads like this.

mingus88 2y ago

Hard to take this person seriously as they equate corporate leadership with fascism Hey folks, every job you will get will be run by an owner that does things their way. If you are outspoken in disagreement they have every right to replace you with an employee that is ok with how they do business This person’s explicit goal was to make a disturbance and get arrested. I can’t think of a single workplace that wouldn’t let you go if that’s what you decided to do instead of your job duties

archagon 2y ago
Not if you work in a cooperative. Maybe we should explore forms of corporate leadership that are not quite so authoritarian.
- lotsoweiners 2y ago
  Knock yourself out exploring them while the rest of us continue to clock in and collect a paycheck. Once your concept has been proven for potential profitability then one can assume owners and shareholders will demand your ideas be used in their companies a la AI and the WWW.

teddyh 2y ago

Most interesting fact from the article: > KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right? > IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely indiscriminate—people who had just walked by just to say hello and maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren't affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see their badge and they were among the 28 fired. > They had to reach out after the fact to tell us, hey, I was impacted by this. Like we had no reason to suspect that someone who wasn't affiliated with us or wasn't even wearing a shirt or anything related to our sit-in—we had no reason to think that they would be retaliated against. So Google knew everyone who even talked to these people.

TiredOfLife 2y ago
Which definition of the word "fact" are you using?
- teddyh 2y ago
  Fact as in “a piece of information, presumed to be true unless conflicting information is presented”?
  - paxys 2y ago
    Ok, here's a fact – all these employees were protesting and Google fired them with reason. Are you going to presume that is true?
    - teddyh 2y ago
      Unfortunately, a public interview with a leader of a group does have more trustworthiness than a random forum comment, like yours. If, on the other hand, Google came out with a public statement saying that all 28 of these people were part of the protest, then that would create some room for doubt and warrant further independent investigation.

amitbat 2y ago

Misinformation all over. Social media must be regulated for the sake of the free countries, being overtaken by tsunami of self-distructing information. Save yourself

egberts1 2y ago

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." -- Joshua, W.O.P.R., "War Games"

kelseyfrog 2y ago

I can't help but imagine in 50 years that a parallel between Google circa 2023 and IBM circa 1933 is thought of as a historical rhyme.

tonfreed 2y ago

This is the result of civil disobedience. He wanted to raise awareness of Google's dealings with the Israeli defence force, this is probably the best thing that could have happened, because all eyes are on the cause now. He's either genuinely passionate and has taken what he sees as a moral stand for a company he probably didn't want to work for, or his protest is purely performative and he's fucked up pretty badly. My money is on the second option, but without being able to read his thoughts we'll never know

paxys 2y ago
We can read some of his thoughts in this very interview. He did not expect Google to fire him for his actions.

matrix87 2y ago

I'm sure the people involved are utterly irreplaceable. They really showed google with this one!

RickJWagner 2y ago

[flagged]

pedalpete 2y ago

This article ignores the vandalism and and that co-workers felt threatened. There is such thing as a sit-in which is disruptive, and makes the point, but why should somebody who comes to work feel threatened by a co-worker? That's not acceptable, no matter what the belief is. And of course, if you vandalise your employers property, of course you should expect to be fired. https://californiaglobe.com/fr/google-fires-28-for-anti-israel-sit-in-at-work/ https://californiaglobe.com/fr/google-fires-28-for-anti-isra...

frob 2y ago
Could you expand on the points of vandalism and threats? The article you linked to only had some vague corporate speak about vandalism, which could easily refer to the banner they hung. The only reference to anyone feeling threatened was a reference to another employee who "felt scared," but it doesn't say the protestor were doing anything threatening.
NicoJuicy 2y ago
Yeah, I call it the TikTok army
deanCommie 2y ago
While I don't want to downplay anyone's feeling of safety, in the current climate, some Jewish Zionists (A phrase i'm choosing deliberately, as a person who is Jewish, but anti-Zionist) have weaponized accusations of anti-semitism to suggest that any discussion of Palestinian statehood, support for peace in Gaza, or even the very presence of a keffiyeh are inherently anti-semitic and make them feel threatened. This is not happening in a vacuum. It is ALSO unfortunately true that whenever the issue of Palestinian statehood becomes magnified some activists use this as an excuse to promote all sorts of classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists and start raging about Jewish people indiscriminately, not just the Apartheid system. (Much in the same way that some BLM protestors take things too far and start accusing all white people indiscriminately of racism). But it is happening. Since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh is inherently associated with Yasser Arafat, many uneducated people innocently incorrectly assume that it is inherently a piece of terrorist paraphernalia, and as a result feel unsafe just from it's mere presence at peaceful demonstrations. Likewise, "from the river to the sea" and chants like it also imply a jewish genocide for them, and make them feel unsafe. I personally believe that particular chant is more harmful than helpful, and I likewise cringe at people wearing keffiyeh's as a means of solidarity. I don't care about what people THINK it means, it is perceived by those whose opinions they must change the most (unengaged moderates) as a symbol of terrorism for justifiable reasons. (Much like the Nazi Swastika's original hindu origins don't matter anymore in any context outside of India, sorry) So. It's complex. It's nuanced. I don't know what happened. But I wouldn't assume that just because someone "felt threatened" by this protest that the protestors actually did anything indefensible. Others have already touched upon the point that "vandalism" can be defined however any party wishes it to be. My 4 year old drawing in chalk on a sidewalk could be considered vandalism, if someone wanted to. In Google's case, using scotch tape to attach a sign to a door and lightly scuffing some of the paint as a result, could be considered "vandalism" for the purpose of an HR-justifiable firing. This is no different than "assault" legally being any physical contact. Tapping someone on the shoulder could be "assault" if it's deemed aggressive and unwanted. Vandalism is no different.

PM_me_your_math 2y ago

[dead]

myrandomcomment 2y ago

You 100% have the right to protest. What you do not have is the right to use your access to the company building to protest in said company building. Feel free to stage a protest out front and I 100% support that. If you truly object to what your employer does then quit. In this case you are highly paid and skilled talent that is not stuck in your job. I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people have.

tw04 2y ago
Ultimately a whole new generation is finding out about the value of a union. You don’t need collective bargaining rights up until the point you disagree with the company you work for and decide to vocalize it. Then you find out how few rights you have.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  I know of no union in the USA that would be able to get its members off the hook for a sit in on an executive office. The unions, however, would at least have counsel on what its members could do to protest, but only for collective action, I’m not sure anti-Israeli sentiment would meet that bar. Usually it’s for economic things, like pay and benefits, that a majority of the union members could actually agree on.
  - tw04 2y ago
    The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members off" from this.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      >The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members off" from this. Ya but that was coordinated by the union for the benefit of the union, right? These people are going rogue. I don't think the UAW would support them either.

jgalt212 2y ago

[flagged]

johnthescott 2y ago

"who was and wasn't involved" pretty big set of folks.

DerKozaken 2y ago

Well I guess you can work for google and still be stupid enough to believe the Palestinians in Gaza are experiencing a genocide and to think that Israel is an non equal state for arabs, so so stupid people who never been to Israel. Radical islam is in their blood, being preached from young age to hate jews and Israel, no peace and no love in their hearts, you the violence and hare in their eyes in the pro Palestinian protests. You allready feel the terror in the streets in europe, the west is next...

protomolecule 2y ago

"I'm Syrian. I'm Muslim. But I'm human, and that should be enough for anyone to have a connection to Palestine." By this logic being Jewish is enough for Page and Brin to have connection to Israel.

alephknoll 2y ago

Google workers protest China contract. Sentiment of top comments : 'If you work at Google and you have participated in this protest: Thank you.' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17776276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17776276 Google workers protest Israel contract. 'If the company continues cleaning house and gets back to their mission then maybe there's still hope for them.' Hmmm... Something is amiss. Protest china, thank you. Protest israel, you deserved to be fired.

beefnugs 2y ago

Learn from others mistakes: the real move is to put backdoors in AI that automatically and irreversibly choose less and less murder targets

welzel 2y ago

Google is not a social movement, it is not a democratic social structure or a family. It is a business with the purpose of generating value. Firing activists who are delusional enough to challenge senior management in public is a good move. Ensure to fire anybody even remotely involved with this activists. Make sure that people understand that their job is not to have political opinions during working hours and even of the clock that they cannot opposite the official position of the company without running a risk of getting fired. If you belief that google is "fascist" or "undemocratic" are are delusional; google cannot be "fascist" or "democratic" because it is a company. You do not elect the CEO of google and you are not a citizen of google. It is a company, nothing more, nothing less. If you belief that a company should be democratic: you are free to create your own company, take your own money or find investors who share your beliefs. Put your money where your beliefs are. Activism is incredible cheap and it is long overdue that companies like google stop pretending to be a "family" or "democratic".