17 ms·

This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I sa

This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I say this as someone who has been for gay marriage since before it was cool. I'm a gay marriage hipster. But this still irks me. I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood. Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder. I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?

corin_ 14y ago
As a Google shareholder think of it as a.) a method for getting and keeping great employees and b.) marketing. As a supporter of gay marriage, think of it as a nice bonus.
- cududa 14y ago
  In part I agree with The point of employee perk and marketing. My obscure view of capitalism justifies it even in light of the proposed arguments. My greatest fear is for the safety of employees in regions that will be hostile to this concept. It seems very dangerous to me. (btw .. I'm gay)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mattmaroon 14y ago
  I think you could say this about a lot of social issues though. Taking any social stance will be a great way to get some employees, a great way to alienate some. I'm sure prospective Googlers are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, so it's probably a net positive to them. But let's suppose truckers were overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, would it be ok for a trucking company to lobby against it? That would bother me just as much as a shareholder as Google's stance. (And more in my capacity as a citizen).
  - corin_ 14y ago
    From a shareholder's point of view then sure, the hypothetical trucking company should do that - except there are other considerations - shareholders who wouldn't want to invest in that company, bad press, other companies boycotting them... it's a lot easier for pro-gay companies to boycott a bigoted company than the other way around. Of course morals come into play as well, personally I'd never run, work for or invest in a company that did that, and I like to think I'd still have that stance if I wasn't gay (actually I don't need to say "like to think", as I already have that stance for various other things that don't directly affect me).
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      Here's my concern though. It's one thing to get involved in a nation's politics where one reasonably understands what the costs and benefits are. It's a very different thing to get involved in a global campaign. What's next? Convince Japanese and Indians to do away with arranged marriages? Where do we draw the line? Or are we trying to remake the world in our image? That strikes me as very dangerous.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        The US has always been remaking the world to its image; it's not always intentionally, though. Personally, it bothers me more that there's a MacDonald's in every street corner than Google's campaign, even though the former isn't intended to promote any cultural values.
        einhverfr 14y ago
        Yeah, I don't like the global reach of MacDonalds too. But you haven't seen the horrible excuse for American food that is Pizza Hut internationally...... I swear after you see the Cheeseburger Pizza and the Chicken Nugget Pizza you will never complain about MacDonalds again....
  - ktizo 14y ago
    How about a bus company owned by the richest man in the country lobbying against homosexuality being included within sex education in schools and then privately bankrolling a referendum, as happened in Scotland. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/693172.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/693172.stm
georgemcbay 14y ago
Some significant percentage of Google's employees are gay. Helping those employees achieve equal rights to everyone else improves those employee's lives not just in the feel good sense but it also makes a lot of practical things like health insurance benefit sharing much more straight-forward. By lobbying to improve the lives of its employees, Google is improving Google. So as another heterosexual gay marriage hipster I disagree with you. I also disagree with you that Google shareholders opposed to gay marriage shouldn't be forced to choose. They are just as wrong in their beliefs as those who supported segregation were or those who were against women's suffrage were. Marginalizing these people for their ridiculously antiquated beliefs is fair game, IMO.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Does Google regularly hold campaigns to help other kinds of employees to improve their lives? E.g., I imagine (random example), Google has a number of Jewish employees. Does Google engage in public campaign agains antisemitism, which is a real problem in some countries? Are there public Google campaigns for other equality issues, such as woman rights, religious minority rights, dissident rights, etc.? Frankly, this is the first such campaign I hear about, and if indeed it is the only one - I tend to view it as cynical marketing exploitation of the political hot topic of the day rather than genuine attempt to improve lives of Google employees. However, if I am wrong and Google is regularly engaging in public political campaigns for the human rights causes and this is just another example - all power to them. However, it would be interesting to see the list of such campaigns - anybody knows one?
  - altano 14y ago
    > Does Google engage in public campaign agains antisemitism, which is a real problem in some countries? Hmmm, anti-semetism is one thing, but it isn't illegal to be Jewish in Singapore.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - 14y ago
ams6110 14y ago
I don't think Google should be doing this, because I don't think employers should take positions on lifestyle choices of their employees. Nothing specific to gay marriage, I would also say that employers shouldn't push biking/walking to work over driving, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, eating or not eating a certain way, reserve premium parking spaces for "green" cars, etc. You can't make everyone happy so just focus on your business, please.
- mathgladiator 14y ago
  All employers take positions on lifestyle choices by offering them. Cigarette, car, pornographic, internet food, and news companies takes a position on lifestyle choices by providing a choice. The unfortunate thing for LGBT is that there is no way to generate revenue by converting non-LGBT to LGBT.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Is being gay a lifestyle choice? I thought the mainstream opinion is that choice has quite little to do with it.
  - spindritf 14y ago
    Marriage in general is a lifestyle choice.
    - Qz 14y ago
      Unless it's illegal for you to marry the person you want to marry, in which case you don't have a choice. Hence this campaign.
  - eta_carinae 14y ago
    > I thought the mainstream opinion is that choice has quite little to do with it. Outside the USA, yes. Sadly, a majority of Americans thinks that being gay is a choice while being obese is genetic.
    - 14y ago
staunch 14y ago
Why would it make you upset that people have to choose between their personal beliefs and owning Google stock? This is the entire idea of the free market. There's absolutely no coercion at play. I understand being upset about what your government does. You can't easily escape being part of that. Anyone who doesn't like what Google is doing is free to disassociate themselves in an instant.
ktizo 14y ago
Issues of social equality are every employers immediate business, and most shareholders are not driven by the lobbying positions that companies hold, but rather a desire to profit. Also, if disagreeing with a company's positions meant having to sell your shares, then shareholder meetings would be even more boring than they generally are.
eta_carinae 14y ago
You have to get used to the idea that Google is the kind of company that has a different sense of priorities than most public companies. For starters, they prioritize employees over shareholders, which is why the food over there is still free despite costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars every day in food alone. But more than that, Google is philanthropic, humanist and a scientific activist. Don't invest in them if you are not comfortable with these ideals.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  And culturally imperialist to boot. Here's the thing that should give us pause about this. Back in the late 18th and early 19th century there were a lot of people who basically felt that the European and American ways of doing things were just better than the ways of doing things elsewhere. Therefore, they reasoned that bringing people from, say, Africa to work in the plantations was a good thing. It was bringing Christianity to some people who hadn't heard the message. It was bringing these people into the domain of progress, and while the US never really had colonies elsewhere in the world in the same way the French or Dutch did, this was a major current of thought that justified a real evil, for the form of slavery these folks were brought into was uniquely oppressive even among systems of slavery. Similarly we have seen human rights organizations argue that everything from gay marriage to sexual experimentation, to internet access is a basic human right. This justifies destroying cultures which are different than us, just because we can't be bothered to tolerate the difference. The loss of cultural diversity, and with it agricultural biodiversity, is just waved away as the price of progress, much like slavery of Africans in the US was. I am not comfortable with this. It's one thing to say "in the US, we should push for gay marriage." It's something very different to make it a worldwide effort. One is permissible since Google is base here. The other can only be described as imperialist.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Are you seriously comparing a campaign to slavery? Influencing other cultures is what we all do every day, and yes, probably you included. The fact that YC offers to take care of Visas influences people to choose jobs that are not part of their culture. Selling/distributing US music, movies and books is a huge influence for change in culture. That's not even talking about the MacDonald's in every corner. But you're being extremely patronizing to the people that compose those cultures by assuming they are little idiots that have no choice but to be assimilated. If people accept gay marriage it's because they chose to, not because Google strolled around in a bus and brain-washed people.
ThomPete 14y ago
That argument can be made both ways.
einhverfr 14y ago
It irks me a bit and I am not a Google shareholder. If it were just the US, I'd be for it. But a global campaign, no, I am 100% opposed. How many ways can you say "Cultural Imperialism?" It's not that I am opposed to gay marriage. In fact as regards the US, I am for it. However..... Marriage is deeply cultural. It means remarkably different things in different places. Something like 30% of Japanese marriages are still wholely arranged. Another 30-40% are at least partially arranged. Marriage is seen very much as a matter of extended families and so personal choice doesn't have as much to do with it as we see in the US. So suppose you legalize gay marriage? What then? Are you going to insist that the Japanese adopt our individualistic notions of marriage too? It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world. Fortunately cultural diversity is not threatened by recognizing new legal arrangements. Societies will find other ways of regulating norms, just as Japan has done following legal changes to marriage laws imperially imposed by the allies following WWII. So fortunately even if successful it will not have a major impact.
- ktizo 14y ago
  It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world. Being forced to spend your life with someone who you don't want, is far more of an imposition than that of an organisation publicly stating that they think it would be nice if people were allowed to marry who they do want. [edit] Also, that position in general, regardless of topic, is unsound. If projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, then all I have to do is claim to belong to a culture that finds it deeply offensive for people to claim that projecting cultural preferences is bad, and then anyone who holds the first position isn't even allowed to tell me about it, entirely by their own argument. Personally I have little faith with philosophical positions that are that easy to catch out.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    Gosh darn those crazy Japs! Even after we bring them our enlightened laws their families insist on keeping their arranged marriages! Seriously though.... At some point the structure of marriage and how it fits into society is a matter only for the people of that society, not a matter for outsiders. Regarding gay marriage, also consider this: In many parts of the world, adoption is relatively rare, and the entire retirement support program is moving in with one's kids. This means marriage in most parts of the world is socially tied to procreation. This also means that gay marriage may be a bit of an economic luxury made possible by 401(k)'s and spermbanks..... We can afford that in the US. How sure are we that we want to push this on other parts of the world?
redwood 14y ago
You can make a strong business argument for this move, I think. Google comes across as young, hip, ahead of the curve, and that's among it's most key user base. It's an interesting concept but actually helps their PR with people they need most. "Pink-washing" if you will :)
rickmb 14y ago
Although I agree with that in principle, I think an exception can be made for anti-discrimination efforts, especially if said discrimination directly affects many company employees and shareholders.
Tichy 14y ago
What about disclosing information about Chinese dissidents. Should they do that, or not? Why does the answer seem more obvious with one moral problem than with another?
naner 14y ago
Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder. I'd tend to agree but this isn't really about beliefs, it is about discrimination.
zitterbewegung 14y ago
I think you are seeing this in the wrong light. It will not change issues that are part of its immediate business. Instead google will be seen by others as a champion of freedom. A good force. Something that isn't "evil". Therefore, the purpose of this strategy is twofold One, is that you get something that helps out your employees. Two, you get to be seen in the world as a progressive force of change. By changing the public perception can do no wrong or that google is a champion of good is worth more. This is a marketing program that you do if you have billions to use. So, you are right. There is no reason that this is relevant to its immediate business. It's a marketing ploy that has the side effect of championing civil rights. I'm not complaining I think its great!
jrockway 14y ago
FWIW, if you read the prospectus before investing (I know, who has time for that), you'd find in the founders' letter to investors: "We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place." Corporations are evil and self-interested by default, but that's not necessarily a condition for being allowed to sell shares to the public.
donniezazen 14y ago
In regards to Singapore and Google's global campaign, other countries have far worse record of equal rights. Some countries like India still follows the Victorian code of sin as their legislature. Google is doing the right thing by making a noise about it.
tuxracer 14y ago
This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I say this as someone who has been against whites-only laws since before it was cool. I'm an equal rights for coloreds hipster. But this still irks me. I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood. Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to negros as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder. I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?

corin_ 14y ago

As a Google shareholder think of it as a.) a method for getting and keeping great employees and b.) marketing. As a supporter of gay marriage, think of it as a nice bonus.

cududa 14y ago
In part I agree with The point of employee perk and marketing. My obscure view of capitalism justifies it even in light of the proposed arguments. My greatest fear is for the safety of employees in regions that will be hostile to this concept. It seems very dangerous to me. (btw .. I'm gay)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mattmaroon 14y ago
I think you could say this about a lot of social issues though. Taking any social stance will be a great way to get some employees, a great way to alienate some. I'm sure prospective Googlers are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, so it's probably a net positive to them. But let's suppose truckers were overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, would it be ok for a trucking company to lobby against it? That would bother me just as much as a shareholder as Google's stance. (And more in my capacity as a citizen).
- corin_ 14y ago
  From a shareholder's point of view then sure, the hypothetical trucking company should do that - except there are other considerations - shareholders who wouldn't want to invest in that company, bad press, other companies boycotting them... it's a lot easier for pro-gay companies to boycott a bigoted company than the other way around. Of course morals come into play as well, personally I'd never run, work for or invest in a company that did that, and I like to think I'd still have that stance if I wasn't gay (actually I don't need to say "like to think", as I already have that stance for various other things that don't directly affect me).
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    Here's my concern though. It's one thing to get involved in a nation's politics where one reasonably understands what the costs and benefits are. It's a very different thing to get involved in a global campaign. What's next? Convince Japanese and Indians to do away with arranged marriages? Where do we draw the line? Or are we trying to remake the world in our image? That strikes me as very dangerous.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      The US has always been remaking the world to its image; it's not always intentionally, though. Personally, it bothers me more that there's a MacDonald's in every street corner than Google's campaign, even though the former isn't intended to promote any cultural values.
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        Yeah, I don't like the global reach of MacDonalds too. But you haven't seen the horrible excuse for American food that is Pizza Hut internationally...... I swear after you see the Cheeseburger Pizza and the Chicken Nugget Pizza you will never complain about MacDonalds again....
- ktizo 14y ago
  How about a bus company owned by the richest man in the country lobbying against homosexuality being included within sex education in schools and then privately bankrolling a referendum, as happened in Scotland. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/693172.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/693172.stm

georgemcbay 14y ago

Some significant percentage of Google's employees are gay. Helping those employees achieve equal rights to everyone else improves those employee's lives not just in the feel good sense but it also makes a lot of practical things like health insurance benefit sharing much more straight-forward. By lobbying to improve the lives of its employees, Google is improving Google. So as another heterosexual gay marriage hipster I disagree with you. I also disagree with you that Google shareholders opposed to gay marriage shouldn't be forced to choose. They are just as wrong in their beliefs as those who supported segregation were or those who were against women's suffrage were. Marginalizing these people for their ridiculously antiquated beliefs is fair game, IMO.

smsm42 14y ago
Does Google regularly hold campaigns to help other kinds of employees to improve their lives? E.g., I imagine (random example), Google has a number of Jewish employees. Does Google engage in public campaign agains antisemitism, which is a real problem in some countries? Are there public Google campaigns for other equality issues, such as woman rights, religious minority rights, dissident rights, etc.? Frankly, this is the first such campaign I hear about, and if indeed it is the only one - I tend to view it as cynical marketing exploitation of the political hot topic of the day rather than genuine attempt to improve lives of Google employees. However, if I am wrong and Google is regularly engaging in public political campaigns for the human rights causes and this is just another example - all power to them. However, it would be interesting to see the list of such campaigns - anybody knows one?
- altano 14y ago
  > Does Google engage in public campaign agains antisemitism, which is a real problem in some countries? Hmmm, anti-semetism is one thing, but it isn't illegal to be Jewish in Singapore.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - 14y ago

ams6110 14y ago

I don't think Google should be doing this, because I don't think employers should take positions on lifestyle choices of their employees. Nothing specific to gay marriage, I would also say that employers shouldn't push biking/walking to work over driving, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, eating or not eating a certain way, reserve premium parking spaces for "green" cars, etc. You can't make everyone happy so just focus on your business, please.

mathgladiator 14y ago
All employers take positions on lifestyle choices by offering them. Cigarette, car, pornographic, internet food, and news companies takes a position on lifestyle choices by providing a choice. The unfortunate thing for LGBT is that there is no way to generate revenue by converting non-LGBT to LGBT.
smsm42 14y ago
Is being gay a lifestyle choice? I thought the mainstream opinion is that choice has quite little to do with it.
- spindritf 14y ago
  Marriage in general is a lifestyle choice.
  - Qz 14y ago
    Unless it's illegal for you to marry the person you want to marry, in which case you don't have a choice. Hence this campaign.
- eta_carinae 14y ago
  > I thought the mainstream opinion is that choice has quite little to do with it. Outside the USA, yes. Sadly, a majority of Americans thinks that being gay is a choice while being obese is genetic.
  - 14y ago

staunch 14y ago

Why would it make you upset that people have to choose between their personal beliefs and owning Google stock? This is the entire idea of the free market. There's absolutely no coercion at play. I understand being upset about what your government does. You can't easily escape being part of that. Anyone who doesn't like what Google is doing is free to disassociate themselves in an instant.

ktizo 14y ago

Issues of social equality are every employers immediate business, and most shareholders are not driven by the lobbying positions that companies hold, but rather a desire to profit. Also, if disagreeing with a company's positions meant having to sell your shares, then shareholder meetings would be even more boring than they generally are.

eta_carinae 14y ago

You have to get used to the idea that Google is the kind of company that has a different sense of priorities than most public companies. For starters, they prioritize employees over shareholders, which is why the food over there is still free despite costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars every day in food alone. But more than that, Google is philanthropic, humanist and a scientific activist. Don't invest in them if you are not comfortable with these ideals.

einhverfr 14y ago
And culturally imperialist to boot. Here's the thing that should give us pause about this. Back in the late 18th and early 19th century there were a lot of people who basically felt that the European and American ways of doing things were just better than the ways of doing things elsewhere. Therefore, they reasoned that bringing people from, say, Africa to work in the plantations was a good thing. It was bringing Christianity to some people who hadn't heard the message. It was bringing these people into the domain of progress, and while the US never really had colonies elsewhere in the world in the same way the French or Dutch did, this was a major current of thought that justified a real evil, for the form of slavery these folks were brought into was uniquely oppressive even among systems of slavery. Similarly we have seen human rights organizations argue that everything from gay marriage to sexual experimentation, to internet access is a basic human right. This justifies destroying cultures which are different than us, just because we can't be bothered to tolerate the difference. The loss of cultural diversity, and with it agricultural biodiversity, is just waved away as the price of progress, much like slavery of Africans in the US was. I am not comfortable with this. It's one thing to say "in the US, we should push for gay marriage." It's something very different to make it a worldwide effort. One is permissible since Google is base here. The other can only be described as imperialist.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Are you seriously comparing a campaign to slavery? Influencing other cultures is what we all do every day, and yes, probably you included. The fact that YC offers to take care of Visas influences people to choose jobs that are not part of their culture. Selling/distributing US music, movies and books is a huge influence for change in culture. That's not even talking about the MacDonald's in every corner. But you're being extremely patronizing to the people that compose those cultures by assuming they are little idiots that have no choice but to be assimilated. If people accept gay marriage it's because they chose to, not because Google strolled around in a bus and brain-washed people.

ThomPete 14y ago

That argument can be made both ways.

einhverfr 14y ago

It irks me a bit and I am not a Google shareholder. If it were just the US, I'd be for it. But a global campaign, no, I am 100% opposed. How many ways can you say "Cultural Imperialism?" It's not that I am opposed to gay marriage. In fact as regards the US, I am for it. However..... Marriage is deeply cultural. It means remarkably different things in different places. Something like 30% of Japanese marriages are still wholely arranged. Another 30-40% are at least partially arranged. Marriage is seen very much as a matter of extended families and so personal choice doesn't have as much to do with it as we see in the US. So suppose you legalize gay marriage? What then? Are you going to insist that the Japanese adopt our individualistic notions of marriage too? It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world. Fortunately cultural diversity is not threatened by recognizing new legal arrangements. Societies will find other ways of regulating norms, just as Japan has done following legal changes to marriage laws imperially imposed by the allies following WWII. So fortunately even if successful it will not have a major impact.

ktizo 14y ago
It seems to me that the idea of marrying someone you want is a human right is nothing more than projecting our cultural preferences out to the rest of the world. Being forced to spend your life with someone who you don't want, is far more of an imposition than that of an organisation publicly stating that they think it would be nice if people were allowed to marry who they do want. [edit] Also, that position in general, regardless of topic, is unsound. If projecting cultural preferences onto other groups is bad, then all I have to do is claim to belong to a culture that finds it deeply offensive for people to claim that projecting cultural preferences is bad, and then anyone who holds the first position isn't even allowed to tell me about it, entirely by their own argument. Personally I have little faith with philosophical positions that are that easy to catch out.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Gosh darn those crazy Japs! Even after we bring them our enlightened laws their families insist on keeping their arranged marriages! Seriously though.... At some point the structure of marriage and how it fits into society is a matter only for the people of that society, not a matter for outsiders. Regarding gay marriage, also consider this: In many parts of the world, adoption is relatively rare, and the entire retirement support program is moving in with one's kids. This means marriage in most parts of the world is socially tied to procreation. This also means that gay marriage may be a bit of an economic luxury made possible by 401(k)'s and spermbanks..... We can afford that in the US. How sure are we that we want to push this on other parts of the world?

redwood 14y ago

You can make a strong business argument for this move, I think. Google comes across as young, hip, ahead of the curve, and that's among it's most key user base. It's an interesting concept but actually helps their PR with people they need most. "Pink-washing" if you will :)

rickmb 14y ago

Although I agree with that in principle, I think an exception can be made for anti-discrimination efforts, especially if said discrimination directly affects many company employees and shareholders.

Tichy 14y ago

What about disclosing information about Chinese dissidents. Should they do that, or not? Why does the answer seem more obvious with one moral problem than with another?

naner 14y ago

Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder. I'd tend to agree but this isn't really about beliefs, it is about discrimination.

zitterbewegung 14y ago

I think you are seeing this in the wrong light. It will not change issues that are part of its immediate business. Instead google will be seen by others as a champion of freedom. A good force. Something that isn't "evil". Therefore, the purpose of this strategy is twofold One, is that you get something that helps out your employees. Two, you get to be seen in the world as a progressive force of change. By changing the public perception can do no wrong or that google is a champion of good is worth more. This is a marketing program that you do if you have billions to use. So, you are right. There is no reason that this is relevant to its immediate business. It's a marketing ploy that has the side effect of championing civil rights. I'm not complaining I think its great!

jrockway 14y ago

FWIW, if you read the prospectus before investing (I know, who has time for that), you'd find in the founders' letter to investors: "We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place." Corporations are evil and self-interested by default, but that's not necessarily a condition for being allowed to sell shares to the public.

donniezazen 14y ago

In regards to Singapore and Google's global campaign, other countries have far worse record of equal rights. Some countries like India still follows the Victorian code of sin as their legislature. Google is doing the right thing by making a noise about it.

tuxracer 14y ago

This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I say this as someone who has been against whites-only laws since before it was cool. I'm an equal rights for coloreds hipster. But this still irks me. I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood. Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to negros as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder. I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?