6 ms·

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 prio

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.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    No. I am comparing the arrogance involved to the arrogance involved in a specific defence of slavery. Yes we influence other cultures. No we shouldn't try to tell them they must do as we say (but not yet as we do, no less)!
    - icebraining 14y ago
      How is Google telling people they must do as they say, any more than you are telling Google they must do as you say by voicing your opinion? not yet as we do, no less Who's we? How is Google not doing what they're defending?
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        They are telling other countries that they must engage in a certain legal structure that has not been accepted universally in the nation they are based. I would have a problem with them doing it anyway even if it was, but the fact that it is directed to Singapore more than Nebraska makes it not only culturally imperial but culturally hypocritical as well.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        icebraining 14y ago
        Google is not the US, the US is not Google. There's nothing hypocritical about their position just because their headquarters happen to be based on the US. Google's culture is what matters. And they aren't telling anyone what they must do. They're giving their opinion. Just like you are doing here to them.
        einhverfr 14y ago
        They are giving Singapore an option to pass laws? Singapore didn't have that option before?
nostrademons 14y ago
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google employee, and a rather cynical one, speaking for myself and not the company.) It's not actually that they prioritize employees over shareholders; it's that they believe that the best path to maximizing long-term shareholder value is to treat your employees well, because then you can continue to attract the best employees. Googlers who blindly believe that Google does whatever's good for its employees tend to be quickly disillusioned. Google does what's best for its business; it just so happens that what's good for employees often turns out to be good for business as well. It's not an employees vs. shareholders thing. It's a long-term vs. short-term value thing, where free food, option repricing, and raises for everyone costs the company significantly in the short term, but ensures their long-term viability.

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.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  No. I am comparing the arrogance involved to the arrogance involved in a specific defence of slavery. Yes we influence other cultures. No we shouldn't try to tell them they must do as we say (but not yet as we do, no less)!
  - icebraining 14y ago
    How is Google telling people they must do as they say, any more than you are telling Google they must do as you say by voicing your opinion? not yet as we do, no less Who's we? How is Google not doing what they're defending?
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      They are telling other countries that they must engage in a certain legal structure that has not been accepted universally in the nation they are based. I would have a problem with them doing it anyway even if it was, but the fact that it is directed to Singapore more than Nebraska makes it not only culturally imperial but culturally hypocritical as well.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Google is not the US, the US is not Google. There's nothing hypocritical about their position just because their headquarters happen to be based on the US. Google's culture is what matters. And they aren't telling anyone what they must do. They're giving their opinion. Just like you are doing here to them.
        einhverfr 14y ago
        They are giving Singapore an option to pass laws? Singapore didn't have that option before?

nostrademons 14y ago

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google employee, and a rather cynical one, speaking for myself and not the company.) It's not actually that they prioritize employees over shareholders; it's that they believe that the best path to maximizing long-term shareholder value is to treat your employees well, because then you can continue to attract the best employees. Googlers who blindly believe that Google does whatever's good for its employees tend to be quickly disillusioned. Google does what's best for its business; it just so happens that what's good for employees often turns out to be good for business as well. It's not an employees vs. shareholders thing. It's a long-term vs. short-term value thing, where free food, option repricing, and raises for everyone costs the company significantly in the short term, but ensures their long-term viability.