<story><title>Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23/google-doesn-t-want-employees-debating-politics-at-work-anymore</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sarbaz</author><text>Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice?&lt;p&gt;Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice?&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t see how you can call it &amp;quot;arrogant&amp;quot; for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don&amp;#x27;t have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power to make our lives and the lives of those around us more just, according to our own personal interpretation of that concept. Do you really think that striving for justice isn&amp;#x27;t OK?</text></item><item><author>LordFast</author><text>Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It&amp;#x27;s not directed at your comment or you.&lt;p&gt;Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; for the rest of the world?&lt;p&gt;An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver products and services to consumers and advertisers playing politics on the world stage is laughable at best, and downright irresponsible at worst. There&amp;#x27;s no framework established within the confines of a corporation to deal with any of these sorts of social problems, and it shouldn&amp;#x27;t.&lt;p&gt;Play the right part, do the right job, and let others with the right skills and tools do the same.</text></item><item><author>jgunsch</author><text>I worked there for a similar length of time, but more recent (2012 - early 2019). The internal political discourse over that time definitely mirrored the rest of the world: becoming increasingly heated and divisive during 2016 and largely escalating since.&lt;p&gt;On the whole, it felt like it pushed the company in a positive direction --- internal discussions mirroring #metoo led to more visibility of sexual harassment and accountability for leadership. The discourse around the James Damore memo, as divisive as it was, felt like it still led to a broader understanding of the negative perspectives women in tech had to deal with constantly.&lt;p&gt;Most importantly (IMO), Google&amp;#x27;s product choices and politics are not inseparable --- Google is far too large and influential to pretend otherwise, and discussing these topics acted as a watchdog of sorts. Internal discussions about a potential censored search engine product in China resulted in pressure on leadership to change course, and pressure on Cloud bidding on the JEDI contract led to Google withdrawing from that bid.&lt;p&gt;Shutting off that political discourse feels like it&amp;#x27;d be a huge blow to &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; from concerned Googlers --- particularly the ones who felt it was worth staying and using their influence internally to push Google toward creating a more just world.</text></item><item><author>oppositelock</author><text>I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people.&lt;p&gt;There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn&amp;#x27;t agree with the majority view, the majority engaged in heckling, ridicule, etc. It was already becoming an echo chamber, and as the majority grew, their tactics grew more petty and vicious. However, this was expected in the politics groups, and you knowingly entered that fray.&lt;p&gt;What seems to be happening a lot lately is that politics are spilling over into large, global mailing lists which target a whole geographic region, so many people get involved, and when a company has 200k employees and contractors, you will find some outliers in there who will pick nasty fights.&lt;p&gt;It only makes sense that they&amp;#x27;re cutting down on something that has turned toxic. It&amp;#x27;s a bit disappointing to hear, since I personally enjoyed the occasional, honest discussion with smart people of other viewpoints - these good discussions made the much larger number of ridiculous ones, bearable.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>LordFast</author><text>Let me clarify:&lt;p&gt;- A non-decision by Google management to not place limits on its internal culture is a decision in itself, and has consequences that we are currently experiencing.&lt;p&gt;- &amp;quot;Justice&amp;quot; is not something for a profit-seeking company to have influence or power over. This is my personal belief. I believe there are other channels that are better designed to address those issues.&lt;p&gt;- My belief on this subject is limited to the above.</text></comment>
<story><title>Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23/google-doesn-t-want-employees-debating-politics-at-work-anymore</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sarbaz</author><text>Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice?&lt;p&gt;Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice?&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t see how you can call it &amp;quot;arrogant&amp;quot; for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don&amp;#x27;t have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power to make our lives and the lives of those around us more just, according to our own personal interpretation of that concept. Do you really think that striving for justice isn&amp;#x27;t OK?</text></item><item><author>LordFast</author><text>Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It&amp;#x27;s not directed at your comment or you.&lt;p&gt;Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; for the rest of the world?&lt;p&gt;An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver products and services to consumers and advertisers playing politics on the world stage is laughable at best, and downright irresponsible at worst. There&amp;#x27;s no framework established within the confines of a corporation to deal with any of these sorts of social problems, and it shouldn&amp;#x27;t.&lt;p&gt;Play the right part, do the right job, and let others with the right skills and tools do the same.</text></item><item><author>jgunsch</author><text>I worked there for a similar length of time, but more recent (2012 - early 2019). The internal political discourse over that time definitely mirrored the rest of the world: becoming increasingly heated and divisive during 2016 and largely escalating since.&lt;p&gt;On the whole, it felt like it pushed the company in a positive direction --- internal discussions mirroring #metoo led to more visibility of sexual harassment and accountability for leadership. The discourse around the James Damore memo, as divisive as it was, felt like it still led to a broader understanding of the negative perspectives women in tech had to deal with constantly.&lt;p&gt;Most importantly (IMO), Google&amp;#x27;s product choices and politics are not inseparable --- Google is far too large and influential to pretend otherwise, and discussing these topics acted as a watchdog of sorts. Internal discussions about a potential censored search engine product in China resulted in pressure on leadership to change course, and pressure on Cloud bidding on the JEDI contract led to Google withdrawing from that bid.&lt;p&gt;Shutting off that political discourse feels like it&amp;#x27;d be a huge blow to &amp;quot;oversight&amp;quot; from concerned Googlers --- particularly the ones who felt it was worth staying and using their influence internally to push Google toward creating a more just world.</text></item><item><author>oppositelock</author><text>I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people.&lt;p&gt;There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn&amp;#x27;t agree with the majority view, the majority engaged in heckling, ridicule, etc. It was already becoming an echo chamber, and as the majority grew, their tactics grew more petty and vicious. However, this was expected in the politics groups, and you knowingly entered that fray.&lt;p&gt;What seems to be happening a lot lately is that politics are spilling over into large, global mailing lists which target a whole geographic region, so many people get involved, and when a company has 200k employees and contractors, you will find some outliers in there who will pick nasty fights.&lt;p&gt;It only makes sense that they&amp;#x27;re cutting down on something that has turned toxic. It&amp;#x27;s a bit disappointing to hear, since I personally enjoyed the occasional, honest discussion with smart people of other viewpoints - these good discussions made the much larger number of ridiculous ones, bearable.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>einhverfr</author><text>I think the problem is that the US has developed for various reasons (including a lack of discussing politics) a series of echo chambers and people don&amp;#x27;t connect politically beyond their echo chambers.  In urban California, among software developers, you are likely to have one or two political views represented at most, and these represent a small racial and class-based cross-section of urban California.  The first of course is the Neoliberal views of the Rainbow Capitalism camp that brought us Hillary Clinton&amp;#x27;s candidacy.  If there is a second view it is the Business Liberalism view of the elite GOP members such as the Koch brothers.&lt;p&gt;You aren&amp;#x27;t going to get the political concerns of rust-belt America, or the political concerns of black families down in Watts recognized, nor will you get the communitarianism of rural America in there either.&lt;p&gt;And so that sense of justice gets warped, even regarding national issues of the US today.&lt;p&gt;What happens when these things go world wide?  Someone&amp;#x27;s sense of justice gets offended by economic orders where procreative&amp;#x2F;childrearing families hold businesses which are inherited and passed on to kids, and where there are solid gender roles associated (my kids&amp;#x27; second culture for example)?  I guess we better do what we can to make the world safe for American Capitalism to come in and liberate people from family expectations.  But that means opening up such cultures to economic exploitation by foreign business and that harm is waved away as if it doesn&amp;#x27;t matter.&lt;p&gt;The arrogance does matter, because the arrogance can easily lead to outright economic colonialism (&amp;quot;for their own good&amp;quot; as much now as a century ago).  The way to hold it in check is for other viewpoints to actually be entertained and discussed.</text></comment>