3 ms·

It's in the thread I linked, the very post you quoted. He started a poll to ask if he should be banned over him posting the "unwoke" page of his digital garden,

by _cenw 2y ago

It's in the thread I linked, the very post you quoted. He started a poll to ask if he should be banned over him posting the "unwoke" page of his digital garden, when the stipulation he already preliminarily agreed to was to not bring it up in Nix spaces. An organization that allows for persistent relitigating and rules-lawyering can't have effective moderation (they're not countries after all), do I don't know what you think the alternative is. And now the same people that want (impossibly) apolitical spaces want this guy to also be able to post this very political rant that you've probably heard before somewhere in some form, that everyone else is endlessly tired of. https://srid.ca/unwoke https://srid.ca/unwoke - in case you are missing more context.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
anonfordays 2y ago
>It's in the thread I linked, the very post you quoted. He started a poll to ask if he should be banned over him posting the "unwoke" page Except he didn't post it, he had it in his profile. This is a key distinction. >And now the same people that want (impossibly) apolitical spaces It's not impossible, it's something we had before the rise of Newchurch [0], and it's something mission driven communities are moving towards. >want this guy to also be able to post this very political rant that you've probably heard before somewhere in some form, that everyone else is endlessly tired of. I agree in general people are endlessly tired of "politics" that are orthogonal to the mission at hand. No one is asking for what you just claimed. >https://srid.ca/unwoke https://srid.ca/unwoke - in case you are missing more context. Nothing there is alarming, it's pretty benign and aligns with the direction of many leaders in the industry [1]. [0] https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch [1] https://fortune.com/2024/04/22/sundar-pichai-google-staff-no-political-debates-office-firing-28-employees-israeli-contract-protest/ https://fortune.com/2024/04/22/sundar-pichai-google-staff-no...
- Macha 2y ago
  > 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.” I suspect Google would cite the same policy this manifesto cites as evidence of it's support as a reason to remove/sanction people posting this manifesto to company resources. That Google is an obvious hypocrite over Israel's behaviour doesn't seem to me indicative that they've totally flipped on every other issue, or that things this manifesto considers political would be considered political inside Google.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >I suspect Google would cite the same policy this manifesto cites as evidence of it's support as a reason to remove/sanction people posting this manifesto to company resources. Possibly yes, which is fine as long as it's consistently applied. The key distinction in this case is srid didn't post a manifesto, he had a link to his personal blog in his profile. >That Google is an obvious hypocrite over Israel's behaviour doesn't seem to me indicative that they've totally flipped on every other issue Not sure what this means considering the context. They're most definitely hypocritical because just four years ago they let "politics" get in the way of mission during the BLM political unrest. They most definitely have flipped on allowing orthogonal political discussions at work, which is the only issue under consideration here. >or that things this manifesto considers political would be considered political inside Google. Identity politics, leftist performative activism, alt-right screeds, etc. are most definitely now considered "political" inside Google considering Sundar's blog post linked above. It's a refreshing welcomed change to be honest.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

by _cenw 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

anonfordays 2y ago

>It's in the thread I linked, the very post you quoted. He started a poll to ask if he should be banned over him posting the "unwoke" page Except he didn't post it, he had it in his profile. This is a key distinction. >And now the same people that want (impossibly) apolitical spaces It's not impossible, it's something we had before the rise of Newchurch [0], and it's something mission driven communities are moving towards. >want this guy to also be able to post this very political rant that you've probably heard before somewhere in some form, that everyone else is endlessly tired of. I agree in general people are endlessly tired of "politics" that are orthogonal to the mission at hand. No one is asking for what you just claimed. >https://srid.ca/unwoke https://srid.ca/unwoke - in case you are missing more context. Nothing there is alarming, it's pretty benign and aligns with the direction of many leaders in the industry [1]. [0] https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch [1] https://fortune.com/2024/04/22/sundar-pichai-google-staff-no-political-debates-office-firing-28-employees-israeli-contract-protest/ https://fortune.com/2024/04/22/sundar-pichai-google-staff-no...

Macha 2y ago
> 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.” I suspect Google would cite the same policy this manifesto cites as evidence of it's support as a reason to remove/sanction people posting this manifesto to company resources. That Google is an obvious hypocrite over Israel's behaviour doesn't seem to me indicative that they've totally flipped on every other issue, or that things this manifesto considers political would be considered political inside Google.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  >I suspect Google would cite the same policy this manifesto cites as evidence of it's support as a reason to remove/sanction people posting this manifesto to company resources. Possibly yes, which is fine as long as it's consistently applied. The key distinction in this case is srid didn't post a manifesto, he had a link to his personal blog in his profile. >That Google is an obvious hypocrite over Israel's behaviour doesn't seem to me indicative that they've totally flipped on every other issue Not sure what this means considering the context. They're most definitely hypocritical because just four years ago they let "politics" get in the way of mission during the BLM political unrest. They most definitely have flipped on allowing orthogonal political discussions at work, which is the only issue under consideration here. >or that things this manifesto considers political would be considered political inside Google. Identity politics, leftist performative activism, alt-right screeds, etc. are most definitely now considered "political" inside Google considering Sundar's blog post linked above. It's a refreshing welcomed change to be honest.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]