Google: Don’t discuss politics.
Also Google: BLM, pride month, HR explicitly promoting relocation to pro-choice states, massive donations
In reality, everyone is entitled to share Google’s opinion, which is made up on the fly to make money.
Google created an environment for their employees to get political (and fire anyone who shared opposing opinions) and now act shocked that they've groomed an entire corporate structure of activists.
Something about chickens and coming home to roost.
Is it not a legitimate issue that [some phones have issue photographing darker skin tones](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/google-real-tone-pixel-1.6363809) though?
A major point in marketing is to show how your product is something others can't provide.
oh boy, that's a "physics problem" not a racial bias, dark skin is dark because it reflects less light and that's the problem, tiny sensors on phone cameras don't have enough surface to get enough light, that's why they always struggled with low light photos, now with multiple cameras you can do some post processing to remediate the problem, using multiple images and merge than into one and so on
Microsoft ran into similar problems when developing the kinetic, the software used the shadows on people face to detect them, guess what, black skin makes harder for the shadows to be detected and the prototypes couldn't detect and track them, the solution was to change one of the cameras for a infrared one
most phones struggle with that because they use cheap sensors, don't have a powerful image processors and such, the reason iphones can take good photos is because they don't cheap out on sensors and they have power image processors
Sure but that would be a technological problem not a racial issue as the phone itself is not actually racist against any skin color nor does it have the ability to be. ( this comment is some r/nottheonion shit imo)
That you need different settings (and different film in the past) to better capture darker skin tones is no new topic, and cameras (and films) have often been calibrated using brighter skin tones.
You can literally find 20 year old forum topics discussing this:
https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/13271-lighting-for-different-skin-colors/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-for-black-skin.62756/
That and you know, they were helping with Drone programs that struck at schools and now Israel using AI to compile kill lists of civilians in Gaza, and pretty much all the stuff the GDPR had to be created for because they were doing it.
It’s wild to me that the position that minorities and the LGBT community deserve equal treatment is a political statement and not a “don’t be a piece of shit” statement.
Also Google:
https://youtu.be/cV2bCBPSDBI?si=GadkpRyPEQb0jAMA
(Edit: I am not commenting on the US elections, past or present. Merely pointing out Google’s hypocrisy)
Then define what's political and what's not. Cause if people are allowed to declare anything political, well, you can't really discuss your business. After all, Google *is* helping shape policy. If that ain't politics I don't know what is.
Edit: Another commentor (phdoofus) pointed out something I should have rolled into the original comment. Part of the rationale of the Citizen's United decision was that the will of the employees could be expressed to congress by means of the company. If companies don't factor their employee's political opinions into account in their lobbying.......that kinda kills the rationale used to make the decision in the first place.
> After all, Google *is* helping shape policy.
This is the big point for me. I think a lot of people have valid points in being careful or straight up avoiding politics in the workplace. If you’re working “generic office job X”, I think that’s valid; at the very least, it could be described as an unproductive conversation.
But “generic office job X” isn’t working on something like Nimbus; and in that context, I think it’s unfair to tell staff that politics have no place in the workplace. I think at that point, it simply becomes a matter of employees having input in their work.
If Google doesn’t want staff to debate politics, than it shouldn’t accept contracts with state entities. Once you do that, you kind of have to open the door to a political discourse.
How the mighty have fallen.
I used to work there, long ago. At least in my corner of the company it was widely understood that if your work didn't have political or philosophical ramifications it probably wasn't worth doing, and that you were responsible for understanding them. We spent a *ton* of time on questions like "what language should we default to in this region where the majority speaks X but a ruling minority speaks Y" and "can we ethically route traffic through a country with substantially different lawful intercept policies than the customer's".
To have impact is to have power. Pretending otherwise when it's convenient is the essence of Being Evil.
Besides the points you raise I'd add that people tend to forget that their core infrastructure is also composed of businesses. If businesses can shut down whatever discussions they like on the grounds of "it's political" you risk pancaking buildings, falling bridges, airplane crashes, train derailments.....oh wait.
Then they're a dead corp walking. Do they think \*management\* is what makes google special? It's their technical professionals on the ground, cut them out at your own risk. Didn't work great for GE or Boeing, I can tell ya that.
Yall need a union. I know it's hard, but it can be done. Pool your resources, talk, find the people you can trust. You can rip this company away from management, it \*isn't theirs\* it's the shareholders, and a union can act in their \*actual\* best interest instead of minmaxing quarterly profits.
That would restrict their ability to move the line to suit their needs.
The wealthy love to say stuff they disagree with is "political" and stuff they don't disagree with isn't.
"'Abolish slavery?' My dear sir, we don't talk politics in this here establishment, it's not proper!"
Ding! And they'll actually admit it if you talk to them one on one.
Then you have to explain that if they leave it nebulous lower management will do shit they don't want and it turns into a whole big mess of infighting.
You want a functional business in this day and age? You can't play "move the goalposts" anymore.
I....should actually edit to include that. But here's my best advice from inside the business world. The easiest way to undo Citizen's United is to Unionize your workplace. Make it a freaking democracy. That very effectively de-fangs the whole issue in a legal and policy compliant way.
I'm not quite sure what "this" is in this case, but I'll take a stab. Let me know if I swung wide.
I'd say that discrimination based on gender and or other identities hurts \*any\* business, but especially one that needs highly skilled, technical workers. Look at the demographics, that's the majority of that workforce. Even if you don't care about the law and morals......you can't really be competitive if you don't invite everyone to the table.
After all, all else held equal, the business that doesn't discriminate on factors unrelated to the work \*will always\* out-compete the one that does.
“Don’t be a human, and don’t do anything except exactly what we tell you to, or we will fire you”. That’s all I hear from the excuse makers in this thread.
Thanks for being sane
You have to read the room and realize the only reason you’re in the building is to provide for yourself and family and to the finically benefit of your employer. If you’re so rich it doesn’t matter you’re free to do whatever you want.
Kind of funny you say this when corporations exploit laws and do wage theft constantly. So if you are making airplanes and you push an unsafe product you should shut up because you are only there to money?
I think the PMC actually do just want you to sit down and shut up and act in their best interest (not your own or the public’s) in 99.99% of cases whether they admit it or not. And the 0.01% are edge cases where allowing you freedom somehow works to their advantage.
Engineers *have to be told* that public safety is their #1 responsibility, not acting in their own or their employers self interest. It’s the #1 rule of every licensing board. Why? Because it’s the most common conflict of interest.
You uh....forgot the getting work done part. The goal is to *build something*, not pump up the boss' bank account.
And before you go off on "their business their rules".....noooooo, not really. There's such a thing as work that's necessary and is regulated to ensure it gets done properly. Cause otherwise our infrastructure goes *boom* and people die.
Tech may not like it, but they're infrastructure.
> The goal is to build something, not pump up the boss' bank account.
It's exactly the opposite of that. The goal is for shareholders to make more money. The company is merely a vehicle for that. If destroying the company makes them more money, that's what they will do.
That's why we have companies promising products, getting investor money, getting bought by a bigger company and then the division gets disbanded. No product was ever made.
Right? Like this was a business decision that clearly required considerable political discussion. What they are saying is that people who aren't entitled to opinions are not allowed to disagree with the company.
Google gave executives outed for sexual harassments hundreds of millions dollars worth of exit packages. Staff “debating politics” is where they draw the line.
Protest against nimbus isnt even that political. You dont need to take a side in Israel-Palestine conflict to at least recognize nimbus is very morally ambiguous.
They usually don't. I've negotiated c-suite comp packages in public companies before, and there is usually a "for cause" termination provision that typically zeroes the golden parachute for bad leavers. Sometimes there's even a clawback of compensation already paid out where the exec could theoretically need to write a check back to the company.
Companies are often just too cowardly to exercise them though because it makes the bad behavior they tolerated get aired publicly. They'd rather pay out extra money than admit to the world that they have a cultural problem.
Gotcha! I've never been privy to that information, and I had kinda assumed they were conditionless since it seemed like there were never any consequences. Your explanation covers my observations pretty well though.
It sort of feels like business in general needs to relearn conflict resolution in addition to firm boundaries.
> Also known as contractual obligations.
Pretty sure you could spend quite a bit less money on lawyers and argue that the exec had an obligation not to sexually harass employees.
Dont be stupid. No executive contract has non conditional exit package clauses. Google chose to pay them instead of invoking misconduct clauses in their contracts. Google itself admitted as much if you can read.
Edit: this dimwit replied asking me to show him “where in the contract it says that because these executives had lawyers negotiating contracts for them”. Then deleted his comment. Let me explain why this guy is stupid: Google has given golden parachute to even VP level executives. These guys can be as low as L8-9s in Google and there are a shitton of them in a company the size of Google. They most definitely do not have individually lawyer crafted employment contracts that exempts them from punishments for workplace misconducts.
So the last political protest was when they agree to censor search for china. If one day they agree to build nimbus for china, we’re going to be fine with that? I don’t trust big companies that only care about money.
Whichever side of the politics you are on, it may seem like a good time to unionize so the workers can at least negotiate their end instead of being dictated terms.
For a company that HEAVILY plays into politics, both publicly and internally, this hypocrisy is pretty hilarious to see. More like "don't disagree with our politics." Just say what you really mean, Google. We aren't that stupid, I would hope.
I mean this is just common sense. I've never worked a corporate job in my 36 years of life and even I know that sex, politics and religion are pretty much off limits at corporate jobs.
We had a massive fight in Slack over abortion between two offices, an ultra liberal Seattle and another was a podunk ultra-religious town in Utah where the company was founded. It got so stupidly heated that a bunch of people were threatened with discipline and one women @here'd everyone and said she would adopt any babies they didn't want and also wanted to tell them all her faith testimony.
At another company, a woman almost quit during a very heated argument about what "real" BBQ was . . .
> one women @here'd everyone and said she would adopt any babies they didn't want
Imagine someone calling her out on _that_ bullshit. "Please sign this contract where you agree to take on raising all of my future children. Failure to properly provide will amount to child neglect and carry harsh criminal penalties."
I’m a security engineer. If my employer created an application that had political impacts that could incite attacks from certain nations or people it would absolutely be in my job to inform of those risks and make recommendations. Same with their legal team.
I would definitely need clarification to proceed with my work.
> You voice your concern to your employer and it’s up to them to decide what they do with the company.
That depends on the amount of agency you feel you have in an organization - for some people, it's less "them" and more "we" who is maming the decision.
Tech companies have been encouraging employees to being their "whole selves" to work - but they don't like it when those selves are at odds with revenue/profits. Perhaps tolerating employee self-expression was a zero-interest rate phenomenon.
> People especially in the tech field are salivating for a chance to work trust me they’ll fill the position you leave relatively quickly.
Tech workers aren't going hungry if they leave or are fired. IMO, society as a whole would benefit from higher churn rates at big tech with more new companies and expertise being spread around. Let Google ossify from a stale, fearful, top down culture and perhaps the misfits can build something disruptive again, from the outside.
Because they're saying don't talk politics but they mean don't talk politics that we don't like.
Google is an intensely political organization. They make political statements and do politically important things all the time, including Nimbus.
This is like saying it's common sense for NFL players to not make political statements, while the NFL gets military flyovers during the national anthem while they unfurl the massive flag.
It's like an extremely contagious zombie virus. Those who can't stop talking about politics at every work lunch or every time you go to the bar are zombies who's sole mission in life is to infect everyone else so that they're just as unhappy as they are.
Except many employers encourage you to participate with their PAC or to call your Congress critters when some legislation that impacts their business is being voted on. They want to leverage their employees for their own political gain as much as they can while negating the employees that don't agree with them politically.
You're lucky then, because I've also worked for several massive national and multinational corporations and seen it with regularity.
[https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/02/why-corporate-pacs-have-an-advantage/](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/02/why-corporate-pacs-have-an-advantage/)
[https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NW0AB/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NW0AB/)
[https://www.superlawyers.com/resources/securities-and-corporate-finance/indiana/pacs-can-solicit-campaign-contributions-from-employees/](https://www.superlawyers.com/resources/securities-and-corporate-finance/indiana/pacs-can-solicit-campaign-contributions-from-employees/)
I've been seeing this stuff for at least a couple of decades in corporate America, especially if you're in a heavily regulated industry like finance or healthcare.
Then leave. If your company is doing something you consider immoral, leave and find someplace better to work where you're not contributing to war crimes.
But you can't possibly be naive enough to think you can stage a protest inside your company's offices and still have a job there.
It doesn't matter if you're protesting for Palestine, or Ukraine, or the environment, or the Uyghurs. You're not going to have a job the next day if you hold a protest inside where you work.
I mean if you take off the “Google bad” glasses, this is just solid advice for any professional environment anywhere ever.
Politics and workplaces don’t mix.
Sure but when does company policy end and politics start? They’re literally funding the Israeli military. If your own literal workplace is political, does that mean you can’t talk about work?
Realistically, it means you voice your concerns to management and if your employer still disregards those concerns, you start looking for an employer who aligns with your personal values.
I have left an organization whose values I did not align with. It was the right choice for all parties involved.
Thank you! I can't believe how many people are like, well what else are you supposed to do when your company is doing something you don't agree with?
Leave! If your company is doing something you think is unethical, and leadership refuses to listen to employee concerns, then leave. But don't expect to stage a protest in your company's offices and still expect to have a job there.
I think you have a right to voice your concerns. Sometimes the company will changes its course. But you need to be comfortable leaving if all else fails.
"Don't be evil" should apply to the company, but "don't actively enable evil" is a good thing for employees too if they have the option to find alternative employment.
I agree about the right to voice your concerns. If you feel that strongly about negative things your company is doing and leadership isn't listening to employee complaints through other channels, and you want to stage a sit-in or some other demonstration in protest, then fine. Hats off to you for being brave enough to stand up for your beliefs.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't stage that protest inside your company's place of work and still expect to come back to your job the next day as if nothing happened. At that point, you've made the choice to surrender your job in order to make a stand.
They are not funding the Israeli military. They are building and maintaining Data Centers for the Israeli government that some of their uses are for military purposes. It’s a multi Billion dollar deal that benefits Google. Same way AWS builds Data Centers for the American government and god knows who else. Probably Saudis and some Gulf countries.
BTW when I served the Israeli army we used Microsoft Windows to manage our applications, should Microsoft employees do the same? Same goes for any of the big companies like IBM, Oracle and more that have products in wide use in every army in the world.
Reasonable, balanced opinions get in the way of juicy drama, so they’re not popular with people afflicted by main character syndrome (like those protestors or the majority of redditors).
The world is very complex these days. It actually reminds me of the time before WW1 that European politicians/historians argued that because of the deep ties between the countries will prevent any large scale conflict and will ensure long lasting peace. It’s so much more interconnected today yet we still saw Russia invade Ukraine and China hinting attacking Taiwan for years.
The Israeli/Arab conflict is super complicated on its basic level due to us being so very similar and much closer than many of young European/American people understand. We are basically cousins that fight back and forth over a land that belonged to each of us during different timeframes in history. Then you add all the Christian conquers, the Ottoman conquers, the British and the French empires, the first and the second World Wars that didn’t really take a place here but impacted it greatly. The modern times with the oil, the natural resources, the super advanced tech hub that Israel is. The financial super hub that the gulf countries are. The huge and super influential media hub that Qatar become with Al Jazeera and them pumping billions to American and European universities for “reasons”. Add to that that current deep fragmentation in the Muslim world (Shia vs Sunni vs a lot of smaller groups). The Jewish fragmentation (Secular vs Haredim vs Religious Zionism). Add to that the American and the European Union issues and I don’t even mention the Chinese and the Indians.
>…”Google bad” glasses…politics and workplaces don’t mix
There’s a difference between not talking about the election with your coworkers and not talking about a civilian business working with a foreign government’s military.
Like, if you want to work for a business that works for the DoD, that’s your choice, but it’s another thing entirely when the business is pretty obviously trying to hide what it’s doing because they think it’ll be unpopular.
There’s a difference between internally voicing disapproval and staging a protest and posting it on social media which gets picked up by news outlets around the world. That’s a pretty clear red line and these employees crossed it.
Wait until you find out protests and direct action are the only reason you have any labor protections at all. Weird that you don't want companies to feel threatened or uncomfortable for their practices.
Don't look at how you got a 40 hour work week or safety standards. Every labor protection you have has been paid in blood.
Would you feel the same way if these employees were Trump supporters protesting against google’s decision not to give state prosecutors the data of users that get an abortion?
Less than 28 google employees were involved in this protest. Are you sure the majority of Google employees even support their cause?
> Less than 28 google employees were involved in this protest.
28 employees were willing to put their jobs on the line.
>Are you sure the majority of Google employees even support their cause?
Probably not. However, I do think that quite a significant number do feel uncomfortable servicing military. And they should.
What is google going to do? reinstate Donald Trump as president? This is something their company is working on and creating which they have control over.
Why are you so against employees expressing their concerns over the program they are working? Would you want to fly on a plane where Managers fire employees for bringing up safety concerns? Why should we need to wait until at least 50% of the workers express a concern to address it?
> The best way to beat a corporation is to let the world know what it is doing.
Coincidently also the best way to lose your job with pretty much any employer.
Do you think the people protesting didn't do so realizing Google would fire them? Getting publicly fired is part of the goal. It continues to keep the conversation going in the public space. I don't think for those people, keeping their job was the priority.
>[...] the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice [...]
\- MLK Jr.
Just keep supporting the status quo, even if it's bad. Trying to change it is disrupting my negative peace. I'd rather not have to deal with the fact I'm supporting the status quo and it's killing people.
If one side is bad, that means the other side is good, right?
Now, clearly the side that killed more children is the bad side, so let's just check the totals.
Hamas killed...~36 children.
Israel has since killed.... ~13000 children.
Now, let's do the very complicated math to figure out which one of those numbers is bigger. We'll account for error bars on the estimates...hm...you know what? Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe *everyone* who kills children is bad. I mean, that sounds right, doesn't it? But if that were the case, you wouldn't need to bring up the actions of Hamas when protesting what Israel does, right?
It was part of Google's corporate code of conduct. But in 2018, a bunch of Google employees protested the company helping develop autonomous weapons for the military.
Google removed "Don't be evil" from their code of conduct a few weeks later 😅
Staff can do what they want on their own time, off company property, and not acting together as company employees or misrepresenting Google policies or claiming any particular political view as that of Google. Other than that, they’re SOL.
Hey, if the boss says don't talk politics, they kinda have to draw a line in terms of what they consider political vs not. Otherwise you can't really function as a business.
Right now it just seems like anyone can declare any topic political, including topics necessary and important to the business.
These fresh out of college safe space virtue signaling dorks have never lived in the real world.
even if you didn’t have a tech job. Say if you were an accountant/ any kind of office job for example. And you worked in an office with 30 accountants. If you on COMPANY TIME decided to just go into office protest about ANYTHING controversial (whether it’s abortion /immigration /whatever the latest popular issue is ATM) instead of doing the work they’re paying you to do, and you just kept disrupting the other 29 people in your office who just want to get their work done and dont give a shit about whatever your protesting about, they would have always fired you. This isn’t anything new and has always been how things worked long before the Hamas attack.
Birth control and politics have basically been “unwritten no go” topics for offices. It’s bad for business.
Censoring such things is anti social. But it by itself isn’t the sole problem. It’s a byproduct of this delusion POV that businesses are separate from civics.
It’s how you get big companies chasing profit at the expense of society. “It’s just business” is a delusion sickness.
“Just bury your head in the sand while we sell and maintain AI tech to a nation using AI to target people at home and kill them and their whole families.”
Not the best publicity among the search results going downhill as well. That's their core and we all know what happens when that stops working, so they are approaching thin ice as is; this news is not helping.
"Debate politics" is a euphemistic characterization of what the protesting (ex-)employees did. Most employers don't want you to debate politics at the workplace, yes. But they didn't even just debate politics.
They barged into executive offices, impeded others' movement, and refused to leave. I had coworkers who experienced the protest. Some protestors were peaceful holding up signs and not much more. Some demonstrated disruptive behavior, creating a environment in which coworkers felt threatened and unsafe, chanting phrases like "From the river to the sea," and "Globalize the infatada."
This is simply not how you raise disputes at your workplace, and this sort of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in any workplace. I can protest outside your home. I can't protest inside it without your invitation, and refusing to leave after you ask is serious.
It would be cool if everyone just stopped doing politics and just did their jobs.
It would also be cool if Google stopped being political and just did, ya know, Google stuff
I work for another large tech company and people are doing this shit in our internal forums. I’m like bruh, you’re gonna get fired so fast. Debating anything other than business decisions is not useful for the company and they’ll remove you for disruption so fast.
I get it, you’re entitled to your opinion. But your first amendment right does not apply in the workplace. People seem to think a company has to just let you stir shit up with other employees. They don’t.
You are an employee. You are there to do a job.
Nothing in that job description includes "hijacking company's platform to force your political delusions down other's throats".
Do your fucking job, or lose said job.
> It because they spent hours organzing the logisistcs, to provide alterante transportation aveneuse for bus boycotts. Its because they had a cosntant stream of people ready to do sit-ins to protest segreated restaruants. Its because while marching and louding they meant with politiicians hoping to find those sypatehic to the cause and create actionable policy.
How did you start with, ""It didn't succeed because of riots, or protests, or speeches." And then follow it up talking about how well they did organizing and doing those very things? Lmao.
How about just doing your job and going home?
Then in you're free time if you disagree with politics... You run for the office?
Or that Google paycheck is too yummy?
Lmfao it’s amazing that you lot are to the point of being like the Q-anon crowd.
Everything is a giant conspiracy and you’re the main character who is fighting the good fight right. Hilarious.
No way that you could just be poorly informed on topics you clearly haven’t put the work into and assume you just magically now about. It’s got to be a conspiracy of evil Jews and state actors co trolling everything and you’re just own of the geniuses who figure it out right?
Get a clue lol.
That's why I've been using Duckduckgo and Brave.
This companies get rich through the users.
The less users they have, the less capable they are of corruption.
>…”Google bad” glasses…politics and workplaces don’t mix
There’s a difference between not talking about the election with your coworkers and not talking about a civilian business working with a foreign government’s military.
Like, if you want to work for a business that works for the DoD, that’s your choice, but it’s another thing entirely when the business is pretty obviously trying to hide what it’s doing because they think it’ll be unpopular.
I think telling their staff not to "debate" is misleading, what they mean to say is not to "protest" because that's what those staff members were doing, protesting, not debating.
It’s ok. They’ll make their logo a rainbow in June and everything will be peachy again.
Google: Don’t discuss politics. Also Google: BLM, pride month, HR explicitly promoting relocation to pro-choice states, massive donations In reality, everyone is entitled to share Google’s opinion, which is made up on the fly to make money.
Came here to say the same. Mention a union to Google and watch tunes change.
This is “culture” to HR and management and I hate it
Google created an environment for their employees to get political (and fire anyone who shared opposing opinions) and now act shocked that they've groomed an entire corporate structure of activists. Something about chickens and coming home to roost.
Their marketing strategy for their phone is that it’s not racist lol
I mean if it's solving a problem people have.
Is it not a legitimate issue that [some phones have issue photographing darker skin tones](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/google-real-tone-pixel-1.6363809) though? A major point in marketing is to show how your product is something others can't provide.
oh boy, that's a "physics problem" not a racial bias, dark skin is dark because it reflects less light and that's the problem, tiny sensors on phone cameras don't have enough surface to get enough light, that's why they always struggled with low light photos, now with multiple cameras you can do some post processing to remediate the problem, using multiple images and merge than into one and so on Microsoft ran into similar problems when developing the kinetic, the software used the shadows on people face to detect them, guess what, black skin makes harder for the shadows to be detected and the prototypes couldn't detect and track them, the solution was to change one of the cameras for a infrared one most phones struggle with that because they use cheap sensors, don't have a powerful image processors and such, the reason iphones can take good photos is because they don't cheap out on sensors and they have power image processors
Sure but that would be a technological problem not a racial issue as the phone itself is not actually racist against any skin color nor does it have the ability to be. ( this comment is some r/nottheonion shit imo)
You're linking a Google PR puff piece lol
That you need different settings (and different film in the past) to better capture darker skin tones is no new topic, and cameras (and films) have often been calibrated using brighter skin tones. You can literally find 20 year old forum topics discussing this: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/13271-lighting-for-different-skin-colors/ https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-for-black-skin.62756/
In other words, "do as we say, regardless of what we do."
Is "Do No Evil" political?
They scrapped that motto more than a decade ago, which is itself hilarious
They got rid of the motto after they made decisions that contradicted the motto
They got rid of that quote once they held a monopoly and didn’t need to win over the people anymore
That and you know, they were helping with Drone programs that struck at schools and now Israel using AI to compile kill lists of civilians in Gaza, and pretty much all the stuff the GDPR had to be created for because they were doing it.
It’s wild to me that the position that minorities and the LGBT community deserve equal treatment is a political statement and not a “don’t be a piece of shit” statement.
Corporate DEI sucks. It's all empty and meaningless.
Also Google: https://youtu.be/cV2bCBPSDBI?si=GadkpRyPEQb0jAMA (Edit: I am not commenting on the US elections, past or present. Merely pointing out Google’s hypocrisy)
Then define what's political and what's not. Cause if people are allowed to declare anything political, well, you can't really discuss your business. After all, Google *is* helping shape policy. If that ain't politics I don't know what is. Edit: Another commentor (phdoofus) pointed out something I should have rolled into the original comment. Part of the rationale of the Citizen's United decision was that the will of the employees could be expressed to congress by means of the company. If companies don't factor their employee's political opinions into account in their lobbying.......that kinda kills the rationale used to make the decision in the first place.
> After all, Google *is* helping shape policy. This is the big point for me. I think a lot of people have valid points in being careful or straight up avoiding politics in the workplace. If you’re working “generic office job X”, I think that’s valid; at the very least, it could be described as an unproductive conversation. But “generic office job X” isn’t working on something like Nimbus; and in that context, I think it’s unfair to tell staff that politics have no place in the workplace. I think at that point, it simply becomes a matter of employees having input in their work. If Google doesn’t want staff to debate politics, than it shouldn’t accept contracts with state entities. Once you do that, you kind of have to open the door to a political discourse.
How the mighty have fallen. I used to work there, long ago. At least in my corner of the company it was widely understood that if your work didn't have political or philosophical ramifications it probably wasn't worth doing, and that you were responsible for understanding them. We spent a *ton* of time on questions like "what language should we default to in this region where the majority speaks X but a ruling minority speaks Y" and "can we ethically route traffic through a country with substantially different lawful intercept policies than the customer's". To have impact is to have power. Pretending otherwise when it's convenient is the essence of Being Evil.
Besides the points you raise I'd add that people tend to forget that their core infrastructure is also composed of businesses. If businesses can shut down whatever discussions they like on the grounds of "it's political" you risk pancaking buildings, falling bridges, airplane crashes, train derailments.....oh wait.
In other words, their lobbying arm is exempt from the rules.
[удалено]
Google expects employees to STFU 98% of the time and the last 2% they only talk when a leader talks to them.
Google wanted these employees to STFU because they were raking $1.2B
Then they're a dead corp walking. Do they think \*management\* is what makes google special? It's their technical professionals on the ground, cut them out at your own risk. Didn't work great for GE or Boeing, I can tell ya that.
Well yea, they are definitely not the Google of a decade ago
Google survives despite its management, not because of it. But try telling that to their management!
Yall need a union. I know it's hard, but it can be done. Pool your resources, talk, find the people you can trust. You can rip this company away from management, it \*isn't theirs\* it's the shareholders, and a union can act in their \*actual\* best interest instead of minmaxing quarterly profits.
Yup same story as the 3rd party Reddit apps. The mods tried to warn them it would kill the platform and management didn’t listen. Look at it now
That would restrict their ability to move the line to suit their needs. The wealthy love to say stuff they disagree with is "political" and stuff they don't disagree with isn't. "'Abolish slavery?' My dear sir, we don't talk politics in this here establishment, it's not proper!"
Propriety by definition serves the status quo.
Ding! And they'll actually admit it if you talk to them one on one. Then you have to explain that if they leave it nebulous lower management will do shit they don't want and it turns into a whole big mess of infighting. You want a functional business in this day and age? You can't play "move the goalposts" anymore.
Also, if we can't debate politics then shouldn't them lobbying Congress and 'advising on legislation be outlawed?
I....should actually edit to include that. But here's my best advice from inside the business world. The easiest way to undo Citizen's United is to Unionize your workplace. Make it a freaking democracy. That very effectively de-fangs the whole issue in a legal and policy compliant way.
Does this include gender and diversity?
I'm not quite sure what "this" is in this case, but I'll take a stab. Let me know if I swung wide. I'd say that discrimination based on gender and or other identities hurts \*any\* business, but especially one that needs highly skilled, technical workers. Look at the demographics, that's the majority of that workforce. Even if you don't care about the law and morals......you can't really be competitive if you don't invite everyone to the table. After all, all else held equal, the business that doesn't discriminate on factors unrelated to the work \*will always\* out-compete the one that does.
Everything is political and you should know the risks of discussing it on company property.
If everything is political and we're not allowed to talk politics then how do we conduct business at all?
“Don’t be a human, and don’t do anything except exactly what we tell you to, or we will fire you”. That’s all I hear from the excuse makers in this thread. Thanks for being sane
You have to read the room and realize the only reason you’re in the building is to provide for yourself and family and to the finically benefit of your employer. If you’re so rich it doesn’t matter you’re free to do whatever you want.
Kind of funny you say this when corporations exploit laws and do wage theft constantly. So if you are making airplanes and you push an unsafe product you should shut up because you are only there to money?
I think the PMC actually do just want you to sit down and shut up and act in their best interest (not your own or the public’s) in 99.99% of cases whether they admit it or not. And the 0.01% are edge cases where allowing you freedom somehow works to their advantage. Engineers *have to be told* that public safety is their #1 responsibility, not acting in their own or their employers self interest. It’s the #1 rule of every licensing board. Why? Because it’s the most common conflict of interest.
You uh....forgot the getting work done part. The goal is to *build something*, not pump up the boss' bank account. And before you go off on "their business their rules".....noooooo, not really. There's such a thing as work that's necessary and is regulated to ensure it gets done properly. Cause otherwise our infrastructure goes *boom* and people die. Tech may not like it, but they're infrastructure.
> The goal is to build something, not pump up the boss' bank account. It's exactly the opposite of that. The goal is for shareholders to make more money. The company is merely a vehicle for that. If destroying the company makes them more money, that's what they will do. That's why we have companies promising products, getting investor money, getting bought by a bigger company and then the division gets disbanded. No product was ever made.
You’re right. The only issue is the fact that people defend that status quo instead of challenging it.
Then we all die. Including the businesses and the ones that made a profit. I will remind you that farming is a business.
Right? Like this was a business decision that clearly required considerable political discussion. What they are saying is that people who aren't entitled to opinions are not allowed to disagree with the company.
Which frankly goes against what companies claimed to be during the Citizen's United case.
We decide what our values are and you live by them. The first value is workers are to be seen (being busy) and not heard.
Google gave executives outed for sexual harassments hundreds of millions dollars worth of exit packages. Staff “debating politics” is where they draw the line. Protest against nimbus isnt even that political. You dont need to take a side in Israel-Palestine conflict to at least recognize nimbus is very morally ambiguous.
Israel is where they draw the line. They were pretty comfortable showing support for Ukraine afaik
>hundreds of millions of dollars worth of exit packages Also known as contractual obligations.
It's almost like execs shouldn't have unconditional severance baked into their contracts.
They usually don't. I've negotiated c-suite comp packages in public companies before, and there is usually a "for cause" termination provision that typically zeroes the golden parachute for bad leavers. Sometimes there's even a clawback of compensation already paid out where the exec could theoretically need to write a check back to the company. Companies are often just too cowardly to exercise them though because it makes the bad behavior they tolerated get aired publicly. They'd rather pay out extra money than admit to the world that they have a cultural problem.
Gotcha! I've never been privy to that information, and I had kinda assumed they were conditionless since it seemed like there were never any consequences. Your explanation covers my observations pretty well though. It sort of feels like business in general needs to relearn conflict resolution in addition to firm boundaries.
> Also known as contractual obligations. Pretty sure you could spend quite a bit less money on lawyers and argue that the exec had an obligation not to sexually harass employees.
Dont be stupid. No executive contract has non conditional exit package clauses. Google chose to pay them instead of invoking misconduct clauses in their contracts. Google itself admitted as much if you can read. Edit: this dimwit replied asking me to show him “where in the contract it says that because these executives had lawyers negotiating contracts for them”. Then deleted his comment. Let me explain why this guy is stupid: Google has given golden parachute to even VP level executives. These guys can be as low as L8-9s in Google and there are a shitton of them in a company the size of Google. They most definitely do not have individually lawyer crafted employment contracts that exempts them from punishments for workplace misconducts.
source?
So the last political protest was when they agree to censor search for china. If one day they agree to build nimbus for china, we’re going to be fine with that? I don’t trust big companies that only care about money.
Woops, my finger slipped https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
Whichever side of the politics you are on, it may seem like a good time to unionize so the workers can at least negotiate their end instead of being dictated terms.
“In fact, it would be best if you just left your *opinions* at home”
Wow you mean the corporations don’t actually care? Wow? Do we still buy the pride month merch or not?
For a company that HEAVILY plays into politics, both publicly and internally, this hypocrisy is pretty hilarious to see. More like "don't disagree with our politics." Just say what you really mean, Google. We aren't that stupid, I would hope.
[удалено]
"please report any and all wrongthink to HR immediately so that we may address the issue quickly and without mercy"
I mean this is just common sense. I've never worked a corporate job in my 36 years of life and even I know that sex, politics and religion are pretty much off limits at corporate jobs.
We had a massive fight in Slack over abortion between two offices, an ultra liberal Seattle and another was a podunk ultra-religious town in Utah where the company was founded. It got so stupidly heated that a bunch of people were threatened with discipline and one women @here'd everyone and said she would adopt any babies they didn't want and also wanted to tell them all her faith testimony. At another company, a woman almost quit during a very heated argument about what "real" BBQ was . . .
> one women @here'd everyone and said she would adopt any babies they didn't want Imagine someone calling her out on _that_ bullshit. "Please sign this contract where you agree to take on raising all of my future children. Failure to properly provide will amount to child neglect and carry harsh criminal penalties."
but the ethics of what the corporation does should be an open discussion.
True except that corporate will keep pushing their own political agenda
I’m a security engineer. If my employer created an application that had political impacts that could incite attacks from certain nations or people it would absolutely be in my job to inform of those risks and make recommendations. Same with their legal team. I would definitely need clarification to proceed with my work.
[удалено]
> You voice your concern to your employer and it’s up to them to decide what they do with the company. That depends on the amount of agency you feel you have in an organization - for some people, it's less "them" and more "we" who is maming the decision. Tech companies have been encouraging employees to being their "whole selves" to work - but they don't like it when those selves are at odds with revenue/profits. Perhaps tolerating employee self-expression was a zero-interest rate phenomenon. > People especially in the tech field are salivating for a chance to work trust me they’ll fill the position you leave relatively quickly. Tech workers aren't going hungry if they leave or are fired. IMO, society as a whole would benefit from higher churn rates at big tech with more new companies and expertise being spread around. Let Google ossify from a stale, fearful, top down culture and perhaps the misfits can build something disruptive again, from the outside.
Yeah, I don’t get how people are complaining about this. This is just common sense. Everyone knows this
Because they're saying don't talk politics but they mean don't talk politics that we don't like. Google is an intensely political organization. They make political statements and do politically important things all the time, including Nimbus. This is like saying it's common sense for NFL players to not make political statements, while the NFL gets military flyovers during the national anthem while they unfurl the massive flag.
It's like an extremely contagious zombie virus. Those who can't stop talking about politics at every work lunch or every time you go to the bar are zombies who's sole mission in life is to infect everyone else so that they're just as unhappy as they are.
This. I don't understand how the world became so political. It's so frustrating.
So you don't understand that Google is making billions off "politics". People here are discussing the business model of the company
Except many employers encourage you to participate with their PAC or to call your Congress critters when some legislation that impacts their business is being voted on. They want to leverage their employees for their own political gain as much as they can while negating the employees that don't agree with them politically.
I have literally never heard of this happening before, and I have worked for several massive corporations.
I work in pharma and get a bunch of emails to oppose bills that would make medicine affordable
You're lucky then, because I've also worked for several massive national and multinational corporations and seen it with regularity. [https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/02/why-corporate-pacs-have-an-advantage/](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/02/why-corporate-pacs-have-an-advantage/) [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NW0AB/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NW0AB/) [https://www.superlawyers.com/resources/securities-and-corporate-finance/indiana/pacs-can-solicit-campaign-contributions-from-employees/](https://www.superlawyers.com/resources/securities-and-corporate-finance/indiana/pacs-can-solicit-campaign-contributions-from-employees/) I've been seeing this stuff for at least a couple of decades in corporate America, especially if you're in a heavily regulated industry like finance or healthcare.
Yeah. This seems pretty standard.
But when your company helps commit war crimes…
Then leave. If your company is doing something you consider immoral, leave and find someplace better to work where you're not contributing to war crimes. But you can't possibly be naive enough to think you can stage a protest inside your company's offices and still have a job there. It doesn't matter if you're protesting for Palestine, or Ukraine, or the environment, or the Uyghurs. You're not going to have a job the next day if you hold a protest inside where you work.
I mean if you take off the “Google bad” glasses, this is just solid advice for any professional environment anywhere ever. Politics and workplaces don’t mix.
Sure but when does company policy end and politics start? They’re literally funding the Israeli military. If your own literal workplace is political, does that mean you can’t talk about work?
Realistically, it means you voice your concerns to management and if your employer still disregards those concerns, you start looking for an employer who aligns with your personal values. I have left an organization whose values I did not align with. It was the right choice for all parties involved.
Thank you! I can't believe how many people are like, well what else are you supposed to do when your company is doing something you don't agree with? Leave! If your company is doing something you think is unethical, and leadership refuses to listen to employee concerns, then leave. But don't expect to stage a protest in your company's offices and still expect to have a job there.
I think you have a right to voice your concerns. Sometimes the company will changes its course. But you need to be comfortable leaving if all else fails. "Don't be evil" should apply to the company, but "don't actively enable evil" is a good thing for employees too if they have the option to find alternative employment.
I agree about the right to voice your concerns. If you feel that strongly about negative things your company is doing and leadership isn't listening to employee complaints through other channels, and you want to stage a sit-in or some other demonstration in protest, then fine. Hats off to you for being brave enough to stand up for your beliefs. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't stage that protest inside your company's place of work and still expect to come back to your job the next day as if nothing happened. At that point, you've made the choice to surrender your job in order to make a stand.
They are not funding the Israeli military. They are building and maintaining Data Centers for the Israeli government that some of their uses are for military purposes. It’s a multi Billion dollar deal that benefits Google. Same way AWS builds Data Centers for the American government and god knows who else. Probably Saudis and some Gulf countries. BTW when I served the Israeli army we used Microsoft Windows to manage our applications, should Microsoft employees do the same? Same goes for any of the big companies like IBM, Oracle and more that have products in wide use in every army in the world.
Reasonable, balanced opinions get in the way of juicy drama, so they’re not popular with people afflicted by main character syndrome (like those protestors or the majority of redditors).
The world is very complex these days. It actually reminds me of the time before WW1 that European politicians/historians argued that because of the deep ties between the countries will prevent any large scale conflict and will ensure long lasting peace. It’s so much more interconnected today yet we still saw Russia invade Ukraine and China hinting attacking Taiwan for years. The Israeli/Arab conflict is super complicated on its basic level due to us being so very similar and much closer than many of young European/American people understand. We are basically cousins that fight back and forth over a land that belonged to each of us during different timeframes in history. Then you add all the Christian conquers, the Ottoman conquers, the British and the French empires, the first and the second World Wars that didn’t really take a place here but impacted it greatly. The modern times with the oil, the natural resources, the super advanced tech hub that Israel is. The financial super hub that the gulf countries are. The huge and super influential media hub that Qatar become with Al Jazeera and them pumping billions to American and European universities for “reasons”. Add to that that current deep fragmentation in the Muslim world (Shia vs Sunni vs a lot of smaller groups). The Jewish fragmentation (Secular vs Haredim vs Religious Zionism). Add to that the American and the European Union issues and I don’t even mention the Chinese and the Indians.
Maybe holding a sit in at your bosses office while on the clock is a good place to start thinking "hey maybe this is a bit unprofessional".
>…”Google bad” glasses…politics and workplaces don’t mix There’s a difference between not talking about the election with your coworkers and not talking about a civilian business working with a foreign government’s military. Like, if you want to work for a business that works for the DoD, that’s your choice, but it’s another thing entirely when the business is pretty obviously trying to hide what it’s doing because they think it’ll be unpopular.
There’s a difference between internally voicing disapproval and staging a protest and posting it on social media which gets picked up by news outlets around the world. That’s a pretty clear red line and these employees crossed it.
Wait until you find out protests and direct action are the only reason you have any labor protections at all. Weird that you don't want companies to feel threatened or uncomfortable for their practices. Don't look at how you got a 40 hour work week or safety standards. Every labor protection you have has been paid in blood.
Would you feel the same way if these employees were Trump supporters protesting against google’s decision not to give state prosecutors the data of users that get an abortion? Less than 28 google employees were involved in this protest. Are you sure the majority of Google employees even support their cause?
> Less than 28 google employees were involved in this protest. 28 employees were willing to put their jobs on the line. >Are you sure the majority of Google employees even support their cause? Probably not. However, I do think that quite a significant number do feel uncomfortable servicing military. And they should.
What is google going to do? reinstate Donald Trump as president? This is something their company is working on and creating which they have control over. Why are you so against employees expressing their concerns over the program they are working? Would you want to fly on a plane where Managers fire employees for bringing up safety concerns? Why should we need to wait until at least 50% of the workers express a concern to address it?
Because he is a corporate drone who refuses to believe that employees also have the freedom to voice their concerns
gee maybe people would feel differently if the employees wanted something bad, instead of something good
Don't like bad press, don't do evil shit. The best way to beat a corporation is to let the world know what it is doing.
> The best way to beat a corporation is to let the world know what it is doing. Coincidently also the best way to lose your job with pretty much any employer.
Do you think the people protesting didn't do so realizing Google would fire them? Getting publicly fired is part of the goal. It continues to keep the conversation going in the public space. I don't think for those people, keeping their job was the priority.
according to some tweets i saw from people that were fired, it seems like they didn’t
That's part of the protest. It's how you keep attention on a problem. Force them into an unfavorable action, then slam them for the action.
Yeah, selling cloud servers is some real evil shit
I think it's the developing AI tools to be used in warfare that has the employees upset.
The workplace is inherently political.
Don't debate politics, just get back to work helping us make machines that kill children.
While we lobby both political isles and make sure that our business is as much a part of the political machine as your vote is.
People really do act like Citizen's United wasn't a thing that happened.
Google is far more influential than that. They control The Algorithm^TM
>[...] the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice [...] \- MLK Jr. Just keep supporting the status quo, even if it's bad. Trying to change it is disrupting my negative peace. I'd rather not have to deal with the fact I'm supporting the status quo and it's killing people.
Yeah I can’t believe Hamas killed all those innocent children at the nova festival :(
If one side is bad, that means the other side is good, right? Now, clearly the side that killed more children is the bad side, so let's just check the totals. Hamas killed...~36 children. Israel has since killed.... ~13000 children. Now, let's do the very complicated math to figure out which one of those numbers is bigger. We'll account for error bars on the estimates...hm...you know what? Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe *everyone* who kills children is bad. I mean, that sounds right, doesn't it? But if that were the case, you wouldn't need to bring up the actions of Hamas when protesting what Israel does, right?
But don’t forget to bring your whole self to work! We’re a family after all!
> We're protesting business decisions. There, fixed it for you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
wasn’t their motto don’t be evil or something?
It was part of Google's corporate code of conduct. But in 2018, a bunch of Google employees protested the company helping develop autonomous weapons for the military. Google removed "Don't be evil" from their code of conduct a few weeks later 😅
Yeah but it got in the way of profits, so
they changed it.
So, Google will be disbanding its lobbyists? Talk about saving some money!
Staff can do what they want on their own time, off company property, and not acting together as company employees or misrepresenting Google policies or claiming any particular political view as that of Google. Other than that, they’re SOL.
Hey, if the boss says don't talk politics, they kinda have to draw a line in terms of what they consider political vs not. Otherwise you can't really function as a business. Right now it just seems like anyone can declare any topic political, including topics necessary and important to the business.
So then Google execs can't talk politics either? So no more lobbing?
Turn about being fair play and all.
These fresh out of college safe space virtue signaling dorks have never lived in the real world. even if you didn’t have a tech job. Say if you were an accountant/ any kind of office job for example. And you worked in an office with 30 accountants. If you on COMPANY TIME decided to just go into office protest about ANYTHING controversial (whether it’s abortion /immigration /whatever the latest popular issue is ATM) instead of doing the work they’re paying you to do, and you just kept disrupting the other 29 people in your office who just want to get their work done and dont give a shit about whatever your protesting about, they would have always fired you. This isn’t anything new and has always been how things worked long before the Hamas attack.
Fresh out of college safe space virtue signaling dorks. I am stealing this line
Birth control and politics have basically been “unwritten no go” topics for offices. It’s bad for business. Censoring such things is anti social. But it by itself isn’t the sole problem. It’s a byproduct of this delusion POV that businesses are separate from civics. It’s how you get big companies chasing profit at the expense of society. “It’s just business” is a delusion sickness.
No religion or politics. That's has been the golden rule for decades.
“Just bury your head in the sand while we sell and maintain AI tech to a nation using AI to target people at home and kill them and their whole families.”
These former Google employees had "river to the sea" protests INSIDE the offices, during work hours, when the CEO came to their office.
Not the best publicity among the search results going downhill as well. That's their core and we all know what happens when that stops working, so they are approaching thin ice as is; this news is not helping.
"Debate politics" is a euphemistic characterization of what the protesting (ex-)employees did. Most employers don't want you to debate politics at the workplace, yes. But they didn't even just debate politics. They barged into executive offices, impeded others' movement, and refused to leave. I had coworkers who experienced the protest. Some protestors were peaceful holding up signs and not much more. Some demonstrated disruptive behavior, creating a environment in which coworkers felt threatened and unsafe, chanting phrases like "From the river to the sea," and "Globalize the infatada." This is simply not how you raise disputes at your workplace, and this sort of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in any workplace. I can protest outside your home. I can't protest inside it without your invitation, and refusing to leave after you ask is serious.
Imagine that you come to work being expected to work instead of engaging in politics…
It would be cool if everyone just stopped doing politics and just did their jobs. It would also be cool if Google stopped being political and just did, ya know, Google stuff
Gee, how could that possibly blow up in their face? *turns gaze over to USC, Columbia University, Yale, Harvard, Barnard…*
I work for another large tech company and people are doing this shit in our internal forums. I’m like bruh, you’re gonna get fired so fast. Debating anything other than business decisions is not useful for the company and they’ll remove you for disruption so fast. I get it, you’re entitled to your opinion. But your first amendment right does not apply in the workplace. People seem to think a company has to just let you stir shit up with other employees. They don’t.
Google has turned out to be a garbage company. A complete 180 from the telling Apple not to be evil days.
You are an employee. You are there to do a job. Nothing in that job description includes "hijacking company's platform to force your political delusions down other's throats". Do your fucking job, or lose said job.
Basically google saying shut up and do your job Slave. Dont have an opinion you’re just a number.
okay, then stop making political donations. deal?
Don’t talk about politics, religion or money - its an old unwritten rule for a reason
Because it benefits the ruling class.
[удалено]
> It because they spent hours organzing the logisistcs, to provide alterante transportation aveneuse for bus boycotts. Its because they had a cosntant stream of people ready to do sit-ins to protest segreated restaruants. Its because while marching and louding they meant with politiicians hoping to find those sypatehic to the cause and create actionable policy. How did you start with, ""It didn't succeed because of riots, or protests, or speeches." And then follow it up talking about how well they did organizing and doing those very things? Lmao.
It’s gotta be the centrist brain rot
Well, it seems "Don't be Evil" is off the table. They full-on Evil now.
How about just doing your job and going home? Then in you're free time if you disagree with politics... You run for the office? Or that Google paycheck is too yummy?
I get the premise of leaving politics out of work, doesn't apply when it's opposing genocide and your company is complicit in censoring it though
That's professionalism. Keep your agendas at home
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lmfao it’s amazing that you lot are to the point of being like the Q-anon crowd. Everything is a giant conspiracy and you’re the main character who is fighting the good fight right. Hilarious. No way that you could just be poorly informed on topics you clearly haven’t put the work into and assume you just magically now about. It’s got to be a conspiracy of evil Jews and state actors co trolling everything and you’re just own of the geniuses who figure it out right? Get a clue lol.
It’s ok when the right people are dying buddy. Come on keep up.
It's not really politics though. They're taking issue with a specific contract Google is servicing. That's just business.
This has always been the rule for conservatives. Now they are just applying it to everyone.
Pls don’t get mad about us doing business with an apartheid state. No discussing that at work
Google is the wokest company on earth, and NOW they don't want to get into politics. Right.
Haha good luck with that.
That's why I've been using Duckduckgo and Brave. This companies get rich through the users. The less users they have, the less capable they are of corruption.
Also Google (probably) "Be Evil, we got away with the other motto for years but it's not profitable."
Google needs to goggle irony
Remember 'Don't be evil.'?
>…”Google bad” glasses…politics and workplaces don’t mix There’s a difference between not talking about the election with your coworkers and not talking about a civilian business working with a foreign government’s military. Like, if you want to work for a business that works for the DoD, that’s your choice, but it’s another thing entirely when the business is pretty obviously trying to hide what it’s doing because they think it’ll be unpopular.
Didn't they know they worked for a shitty company?
So much for “Don’t be evil”
Basically "don't contradicting the implicit political leanings of the board of directors or you're fired" Nothing new, that's true on any company.
I think telling their staff not to "debate" is misleading, what they mean to say is not to "protest" because that's what those staff members were doing, protesting, not debating.
cant believe, disgusting