Someone should do a story about all us Googlers who are sick of the politics. You won’t see protests, open letters and stories in the media about it, because most of us are afraid of the outrage and call-out culture negatively impacting our careers. However, it’s a common topic among like-minded people in informal conversations.
I suspect we'll see companies starting to avoid hiring people who've made politics their religion. I'd be surprised if Google isn't already trying to take steps in that direction.
Not just google but there's a significant market across silicon valley for employees who don't have so many ethical dilemmas, if any. For instance,there are employers partnering with specific coding bootcamps that develop a complete personality/IQ overview on each of their students before they graduate which can be used later by employers. It also helps bootcamps predict which of their potential graduates will be more likely to remain employed and kick out students who are likely to have problems obtaining or holding jobs BEFORE they graduate and affect their job placement statistics.
> For instance,there are employers partnering with specific coding bootcamps that develop a complete personality/IQ overview on each of their students before they graduate which can be used later by employers. It also helps bootcamps predict which of their potential graduates will be more likely to remain employed and kick out students who are likely to have problems obtaining or holding jobs BEFORE they graduate and affect their job placement statistics.
This is such progress, and absolutely a direction we all should move in, and not at all creepy, scary, and disgusting AF.
I hope that they use spiders that trawl social media sites for political posts by prospective candidates to weed out the ones with erroneous and excessive political points of view.
I bet that they could look to China for ideas in this endeavor.
I suspect when companies start doing that you’ll see more people in our industry avoiding these unethical companies. It’s a fact that young people are demanding more ethical workplaces, even finance is adapting to the new labour market.
Argument from authority. Given student loans and rent increases in the past decade, I imagine “young people” care most about paying their bills. The ones protesting are the privileged few
That's why they are protesting, you know. Because "having an opinion", "not being chained by a loan until you are old", and so on should not be a "privileged" position in any sort of environment I personally want to live in.
What is your point exactly anyway? "Not all people can afford to express opinions and influence their employers, so those who can should not be taken into account"?
That's a non-sequitur, if you like attaching fallacy labels to statements.
Citing a logical fallacy doesn’t make a statement false. There’s numerous sources supporting this(note that these are 3 different surveys from 3 different sources from 3 different years all showing the same result):
”Nearly nine out of ten, or 86 percent, of millennials (those between the ages of 22 and 37) would consider taking a pay cut to work at a company whose mission and values align with their own, according to LinkedIn’s latest Workplace Culture report. By comparison, only 9 percent of baby boomers (those between the ages of 54 and 72) would.“
“At least those are the results of a new survey out from insurer MetLife, which found that nine out of 10 people would choose a company with similar values over a job that pays more. And they are willing to take a pretty big pay cut to make sure those values align with their own.
The average pay cut employees were willing to take was 21%. The findings were not limited to high-wage earners: People who made less than $50,000 a year also said they still were willing to part with at least some of their salaries for the right company.”
”Almost half the workforce (42%) now want to work for an organisation that has a positive impact on the world, according to research carried out by consultancy Global Tolerance. The survey of more than 2,000 people in the UK found 44% thought meaningful work that helped others was more important than a high salary and 36% would work harder if their company benefitted society.
The change, it would appear, is being driven by the so-called millennials. Of those born between 1981 and 1996, 62% want to work for a company that makes a positive impact, half prefer purposeful work to a high salary, and 53% would work harder if they were making a difference to others.“
Companies are not supposed to be a way by which you enforce your moral beliefs. You have laws and elections for that. How would you like if businesses turn you away because of your unethical beliefs?
But laws and elections have been singularly ineffective at stopping global warming.
Take a look at the success of the Civil Rights movement. Do you think segregation would have ended as quickly had black activists simply stuck to laws and elections, and not protested and deliberately did things that were actually illegal: like sitting in the front of a bus or disobeyed police orders to disperse while protesting?
The extra-legal actions of the protesters and the brutal response of the authorities (all documented through the mass media) made way more people aware of their cause and gained them many allies.
Or take a look at all the labor activism in the US, back when unions were strong, which brought about things like the 40-hour work week and workplace health regulations: these were not won merely through elections.
Or look at the Suffragettes, who helped win the right for women to vote not by restricting themselves to winning elections but by direct action.
Or India's successful struggle to independence under the leadership of Gandhi. Once again, it was coordinated activism which made the difference.
The list of such successful activism could grow very long.
Which isn't to say elections are useless (though with all the easily hackable electronic voting machines and vote counting machines out there, sometimes I wonder), but to reject activism in favor of elections is to give up a very powerful tool for change.
Its activism + old fashioned democratic politics. At least in the US. The suffragettes brought attention and then they mobilized a political coalition. Organized labor agitated but it was though the ballot box that the 40 hour week job safety were granted.
1) those activists,especially civil rights movement exhausted all legal means.
2) illegal does not mean violent and harmful. A peaceful protest is fine, I actually support that. Being loud so you can be heard is fine too. What is not fine is expecting companies to refuse to do business with your opposition in solidarity or any other move that is essentially harming your opponent and does not fall in line with peaceful activism. You shouldn't get someone fired, get businesses to stop offering services to them,exclude them from public events,subject them and their associates to humiliation and social isolation and of course you shouldn't cause them physical harm either.
If someone hires a person who denies climate change or if a person does business or works for big oil they are not responsible for the views and actions of the people/business they associate with and they do not owe anyone solidarity in form of terminating those relationships.
What yoy have these days is "activism" by form of isolating your opponents using anyone in a position of power to sever ties with them and if the pains of isolation are too much they might give way and let you win. To me that is cowardly and in some ways just as bad if not worse than physical violence. If you beat someone up they might heal,if you make them unhirable then they either starve or find more extreme people on their side to support them -- further solidifying their stance. I oppose cruelty as a method of bringing about positive change,ends don't justify means.
The point is to increase the marginal cost of fossil fuels to harm their competitiveness against renewable energy. Denying them access to cost-saving technology is one way to do that.
I'm a little annoyed you think I'm some kind of simpleton who hasn't considered the tradeoffs of my position and that your comment comes as some kind of shock to me. I have considered your points before, and found that on balance it's worth it.
> But laws and elections have been singularly ineffective at stopping global warming.
...in the US. I am sorry that I keep pointing that out, but global warming is being fought by most elected leaders right now. With some moderate success. The per capita emission in the world has plateaued, despite a positive economic growth. OECD countries have seen a decrease, China seems to come close to plateau as well.
US' leaders are the ones who unilaterally pulled from Kyoto and Paris treaties.
And I mean, even in the US, CO2 emissions are diminishing, in huge parts because of environmental policies.
> Companies are not supposed to be a way by which you enforce your moral beliefs.
Says who? I don't know about your ethical system, but mine certainly doesn't demand that I confine ethics to one sphere and never let it touch the others. Indeed, such an ethical system sounds completely broken to me.
Your ethical system is impractical and toxic. Your ethical system works by way of forcing your views on others. Perhaps if you were denied access to services,businesses,jobs,etc... Because of your ethical system you can appreciate the problem?
"I can treat you this way but you can't treat me the same way" sounds hypocritical does it not? You're right so you get to discriminate be intoletant and harm others,is that what you're saying? If you're so right let us use established systems of society to codify your beliefs,don't use your influence amd wallet to twist arms like a coward against those who lack your power and influence.
A system where people don't arm-twist and harm each other but use civilized discussion and peaceful discourse to patiently bring about desired change is what I support.
I do not support using your power as an employer, business owner,boss, monopoly(google) and other positions of power and influence to force others to practice your beliefs! I bet you would lose your mind if a religious person enforcef their religious beliefs the same way or if the people you disagree with did the same thing.
With your way,it is not the voice of who is right or of the majority that prevails but the strongest and most powerful win. And with your way phsyical violence and war are inevitable. Like ghandi said,be the change you wish to see. And tell others with your lowdest most peaceful voice,that's peaceful change. If that don't work for you then use violence and arm-twisting like this and let history repeat once more.
> A system where people don't arm-twist and harm each other but use civilized discussion and peaceful discourse to patiently bring about desired change is what I support.
But yet some regressive herd action always ends up carrying the current day, only to be lamented twenty years later, when a different but philosophically-similar goal will carry.
You wouldn't say that an individual choosing to not work at a specific company was "impractical" or "toxic", nor would you say that a small business avoiding a certain type of client was either. The real measure is when it becomes coercive.
Your comment is getting traction because red-flavor-thinking has been put in the position of pushing back against powerful corporations censoring individual speech. One of the justifications from the power-cheerleaders is "voluntary association", completely ignoring the power imbalance. And so the overall concept of voluntary association takes collateral damage despite being valid when applied honestly.
You wouldn't say that an individual choosing to not work at a specific company was > "impractical" or "toxic", nor would you say that a small business avoiding a certain type of client was either. The real measure is when it becomes coercive.
Voluntary association is a legal right but not associating based on political affiliation I am pretty sure is illegal and if not it should be. It is coercion when employees protest a company's business partners,they are using their high demand skills that got them employed to advance personal political ends. They are using their collective power to coerce business decisions in order to harm their political opposition.
> Perhaps if you were denied access to services,businesses,jobs,etc...
The right to refuse service to customers, and birth control to employees, on the basis of religious belief of business owners, has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
That is one interpretation of several pages of judicial thought. Although not disagreeable, it throws out a lot of the subtleties about why the decisions were made and what specific circumstances and conflicting rights contributed to that decision.
Looking at the cases you linked, I suspect if GCP were to deny services to gay people or abortion service providers the courts would determine that circumstances were different.
> The right to refuse service to customers, and birth control to employees, on the basis of religious belief of business owners, has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
> Companies are not supposed to be a way by which you enforce your moral beliefs.
Moral beliefs would be a mockery if they were so strictly confined. The whole point of morality is that it's a set of rules on how to live your life by. They always apply, in every interaction with other humans.
Right now, for example, by attacking the OP as "toxic", you are applying your own moral beliefs to them.
And of course this is not "arm-twisting". Refusal to associate with somebody generally isn't - you are not owed anybody's company, labor, or their good disposition towards you.
> How would you like if businesses turn you away because of your unethical beliefs?
I have a similar reaction when I see that there are ~1000 Googlers who submitted a letter protesting X.
That's literally 1% of their workforce. I'm sure you can cherry pick 1% of any workforce, especially a company the size of Google, that agree with anything you might want to look for - regardless of neurodiversity or your belief in how liberal/conservative Google is as a whole.
I don't think it would be a particularly newsworthy story. "Group of people afraid of speaking up against the other groups of people currently speaking up, for fear of impact to their career".
It's the other way around. Google, and a lot of other big name companies, have their hands deep in policy-making. You should be just as sick that these companies are pulling these strings all the time in politics as you are with your coworkers at Google.
At least your coworkers are on your side and fighting for the good cause, unlike your employer.
> You should be just as sick that these companies are pulling
One can be sick of people turning the office into a political battle-field and simultaneously have no problems with outward corporate lobbying. These are different problems.
People seem to confuse the workplace with the army, where insubordination is both unacceptable and undesirable. This is kind of army mentality is ofc the normal state of affairs where the workers have neither demand leverage nor an union. To wish to suppress workers opinion when that leverage luckily exists seems just evil to me.
> where the workers have neither demand leverage nor an union
It barely has anything to do with Google's work condition however, employees are demanding to have a say in who Google management choses to work with or not, that's a very different concern than negotiating severance, or worktime. Maybe that's how americans think about union in USA, that's definitely not what worker unions are about in Europe for instance.
I do hope there are some sane people still left and that you grow some balls. Google is too important, too influential for society to afford its takeover by fanatics.
Well, that's what you get when you attract idealist people by pretending your motto is "Don't be evil". They keep the company accountable for their promise.
What percentage of google employees do you estimate fall into the category you mention? From the outside it ALL feels like noise except for the seemingly few ~dozen who actually left their roles over the years for their convictions.
Google is at fault for this constant outrage from employees over contracts, government work, and selective biases. It percolates down all the way from the top there. It's not good business, the inmates are running the asylum at Google.
Politics is for the privileged, people who aren't doesn't have time or energy to try to change the world. This is why the most politically active are home owners, business owners, lawyers, doctors etc, who mostly petition for laws to cement their positions.
> If one considers the most polluted cities and areas in the world, they are mostly not in the USA. So how much power do we actually have?
I don't want to be disrespectful, but frankly this question - in the context of protesting helping oil companies - just shows how much there is to be done. You live in the country that is the second biggest carbon polluter in the world (and generate much of the demand that fuels the first). And you think there's nothing you can do...?
This thread has plenty of unironic use of "SJW", complaints about any left wing activism being about stroking their own ego and how politics should be left out of the office.
The posts about Stallman had plenty of defenders as well.
Personally, I try to avoid echo chambers by avoiding areas where echo chambers are prevalent and staying quiet in areas I cannot avoid. The trolling of group stupidity isn't worth the hassle.
Have you considered those cities are polluted because that is where all the stuff that gives us such high quality life is manufactured?
Recycling & not littering will do dick all to stop climate change. Peacefully living & having families as though nothing is happening is no longer an option.
First, I'd start by building a product ecosystem that becomes an inescapable cornerstone for all communication and information retrieval in the modern technological age.
Second, I'd work to track users' every move around my various products in the name of "advertisement" to make my investors happy and rich.
Lastly, I'd start bowing to external governmental pressure and abusing all of the vast swathes of data I've gathered to become a mass surveillance arm of every superpower.
Now let's just do a quick "Background" check on every candidate's name, email address, social media and github usernames. Oh look, they post on Twitter about politics an average of 30 times a day and our ML models mark them as 82% likely to increase workplace dissent. Immediate disqualification.
You do a basic background check and investigation which I'm sure Google already does and just add strong political opinions as a parameter to flag. If you're willing to protest against your employer then you are probably already sharing strong opinions on things like social media so these individuals should be detectable.
I'm sure Palantir or the current incarnation of Cambridge Analytica can whip-up an "employee background check" service that can sniff out inchoate SJW-ism from "edgy" tumblr posts from 2002 or liking American Idiot on MySpace.
Leadership is afraid of them. When I was there I had the same skip as some prominent “activist”. I’ve seen other people let go for poor performance pretty quickly but somehow this nutbag was spending all of his time on internal g+ and company-wide mailing lists where he bragged about how many people he reported to hr monthly among other things. All while doing fuck all for his actual work. Lasted 3 years before finally getting canned then sued
Doesn't sound as leadership were scared of them then. Dismissal processes for things that aren't gross misconduct frequently take a while as they go through various warning stages.
There were plenty of things that could be considered “gross misconduct” that I won’t go into. And as I said - same part of the org had people gone much quicker when just not performing.
Thanks for being the only reply so far to attempt to actually address what I asked.
I have some critiques of what you've linked; I don't put much stock in the "I turned out fine" school of thought, for one. But it was an interesting read.
Striving for the "impossible" is something we do all the time, as hackers. It seems to me like the disagreement is not over whether one can achieve an impossible standard of justice, but rather, over what is impossible.
Social justice would be great and we hope that, someday, the identity politics progressives will actually show some interest in promoting it instead of cancel culture, outrage, and grandstanding.
> The extremes are a product of the ineffectiveness of more measured tactics.
You can use that logic to justify _absolutely anything_.
The extremes are there because people performing them actually like performing them. They do it because performing the extremes gives them status and power over others -- sometimes real, sometimes imaginary. They do it because it costs very little and it feels good and it can sometimes bring completely outsized rewards (career, uni degrees, money, fame, etc.).
It was true when people added names to Sulla's proscription lists in 81 BC. It was true when people reported their neighbours as 'kulaks' in 1930. It is true now because nothing really changes under the sun.
You won't like my answer. SJ is all about hypocrisy. Wrt the corp culture, SJ poisons the well. I'll explain. Most of the diverse folks are fine, but a tiny fraction of them are covert activists: they have fragile ego and would report you to hr for anything. It's a matter of survival to spot such activists and avoid them. Soon you realise that it's just too hard to distinguish good folks from bad ones and you start avoiding the entire group. This is when this subconscious bias forms. Another way to look at it is if you have an organisation and you don't keep an eye on corruption, soon these few bad apples would destroy the image of the entire organization.
I don't think it's going to be a very interesting discussion if we can't agree that the phrase "social justice warrior" means "someone who fights for social justice."
SJW is a derogatory expression, like "TERF", social justice warriors don't call themselves social justice warriors. I would call social justice warfare a set of sophistic mindsets and tactics in order to push an intersectional narrative accross every community. "Codes of Conducts" for instance are an euphemism for "political and thought control" in a community. It doesn't make a community better, it just forces it to accept an intersectional narrative and eliminate political dissidence, through ideological purity.
The best example is the atheist community that was about atheism. Some people "hijacked" that community and pushed for "atheism +", where now it was no longer enough to be atheist, you had to also be an intersectional feminist, pro-LGBT+,anti-racist, anti-islamophobia... not that it is a bad thing but it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. So "atheism +" gatherings ended up talking about anything but atheism itself, since it had now to talk about representation of women, LGBT+, minorities in conferences.
I don't think it's going to be a very interesting discussion if we can't agree that the phrase "social justice warrior" means "someone who fights for social justice."
I guess you also believe that "Nice Guy" is just a decent man? There are a lot of decent people fighting for social justice, but "social justice warrior" is an epithet for those who just wants to fight and happened to grow up under the social justice banner. The only thing they are good at is creating enemies.
False dilemma. I automatically change the radio station away from NPR when impeachment stuff is on because there is no point in listening to details of the inevitable (and I get mad)
I mean participating in politics, not consuming politics. You have no say over impeachment since, if it happens, it'll likely happen before any coming elections.
This line of argument is utterly insane. As a reductio ad absurdum: Inasmuch as the intent of war is effecting political change (as Clausewitz put it, "the continuation of politics by other means"), your argument applies just as well. By your logic, antiwar activists would be nothing more than status quo fans who want to be comfortable. This would obviously be ludicrous: it's possible to object to the means of war without comment on whether its claimed aims are worthwhile.
Being "sick of politics" in this case easily describes many people I know, people who have been far more serious about the issues you raise for far longer than many of the loudest advocates today are. The aversion isn't to change per se, but to methods that have become fashionable that are seen as both counterproductive to their aims and detrimental to civic society.
That is just name calling, and doesn't really improve the quality of the discussion.
> Inasmuch as the intent of war is effecting political change (as Clausewitz put it, "the continuation of politics by other means"), your argument applies just as well. By your logic, antiwar activists would be nothing more than status quo fans who want to be comfortable. This would obviously be ludicrous: it's possible to object to the means of war without comment on whether its claimed aims are worthwhile.
Antiwar activists are, by definition, actively participating in politics. The same is true of people who promote war. So, no. Nothing that you write holds "by my logic". If you are "sick of politics", then you are in favor of maintaining the status quo, whatever it is. There is really no way around it.
> Being "sick of politics" in this case easily describes many people I know, people who have been far more serious about the issues you raise for far longer than most of the loudest advocates today are.
How do you know any of that? Sorry, but I won't just take your word for it. And, in any case, it is besides the point. I was not even arguing in favor of the activists, I was instead claiming that wanting people to stop doing politics is politics.
> The aversion isn't to change per se, but to methods that have become fashionable that are seen as both counterproductive to their aims and detrimental to civic society.
Again, how do you know that? Are you a mind reader?
Or rather, you can, but then it is unwise to be surprised when society changes in a way you didn't anticipate or condone because a long conversation happened you chose not to be a part of.
This sounds exactly like the kind of thing that people who have various other religious conversions say. They have this profound ineffable moral "awakening" and then see fit to start integrating it into every aspect of their lives up to and including trying to "awaken" other people. It's very disturbing to see people go through this process in my opinion as it's a stark reminder that even the most intelligent and thoughtful human beings can essentially have their minds hijacked. It makes me wonder if and when I'll have my mind hijacked, or if it already is (people who have been pwned this way surely don't realize it).
Do you think that it's possible to have your mind hijacked by apathy?
Do you think that it's possible to have your mind hijacked by your identity?
Morality is not what is being pointed to here, morality is relative and a projection of the mind.
It's futile to try to awaken anyone else, because people cannot see past their present level of consciousness. Skeptics in particular often cannot be skeptical of their skepticism which makes them just as ideological about rationality as any religious belief.
But I am open to the possibility that this is wrong, and that politics is just another activity that you can avoid to zero detriment, and that being maximally selfish has plenty of workability in creating a better world for the future. And also it's obviously part of human evolution.
I'm open to participating in politics being for some people and not for others.
Politics exists because we are selfish. Recognition of the fact that we are selfish and that the political civil order need not necessarily be a part of every facet of everyday life is how we ended up with such ideas like “Separation of Church and State”.
Otherwise we would be picking state religions, giving tax advantages to the favored religion, and maybe even burning heretics at the stake depending on the current political mood. Probably Jewish people would have gotten killed or exiled for one reason or another from the United States as well.
Somehow on matters of theology, while debates and biases still exist, even atheists can live life surrounded by Catholics without fear of persecution. On the time scale of history, that’s a pretty neat feat. Whatever politics exist in various churches, are by and large outside the scope of the national government.
The reason our politics is so vicious these days is because we have such a large Federal State that is substantially more than a mere national government. A government which was founded more or less to ensure the common defense, provide for bankruptcy courts and keep the the United States a free trade area back before they even had the term for it. The more functions you want to graft onto the State, Federal or your home State, the more you are inviting the political preferences of your neighbors and fellow citizens into your own life, and the more you have at stake come the next elections because the next President can always undo the entire regulatory legacy of the previous one. This is why laws originate in Congress where it takes a law to undo a law. If your rights only exist by Executive fiat that the next administration can undo with the stroke of a pen, then you don’t really have them.
Would demonizing and banning psychedelics not count as advancing one religious or spiritual tradition over another?
This is getting way off topic, but does it stand to reason that new emerging spirituality that uses substances that are not tax-advantaged/legal counts as favoring the traditional over the new? (setting aside the history of psychedelics that's older than Judaism or Christianity)
I think demonizing and banning psychedelics was part of a larger scheme to find reasons to lock more black people up. Because that’s ultimately what the drug war was and is about. Best thing we could do is wash our hands of the whole thing, and try to revert our criminal justice system back to the state it was in prior to prosecuting the Drug War. Based of today’s political atmosphere, I don’t have a whole lot of hope for it, but at least as far as weed and psychedelics go, we’re starting to see something of a correction that will remove them from the scope of the drug war in time.
I think you could make a good case, I don’t know if it would be a winning case today, but I think you could make a good case along those lines in the courts. That said, I am incredibly unfamiliar with psychedelics and either their history or culture so I don’t want to say more than that.
I will say that if a substance were banned for blatantly religious reasons, I don’t think SCOTUS in any age would have upheld the ban as Constitutional. There would have to be a non-religious reason for the substance controls.
I for one would like to get the government out of the Drug War business though. It’s done, it’s a drain on the Treasury, it’s explicitly racist, and it actively distorts our civil and political institutions.
Being highly political seems to be most concentrated in the young. Once you hit your mid 30s and have a few kids you learn to have a little perspective and not get so caught up in it. The ones that stay political are either people trying to make a career out of it, or are consumed with the virtue of their ideology. Both groups are to be looked at with skepticism and avoided.
And how can you be so certain about that? Who knows what rich investor would read this article and reconsider the greennees of his investments and then tell his secretary to call... whoever is Google's CEO.
> Someone should do a story about all us Googlers who are sick of the politics.
So you are sick of politics...
> it’s a common topic among like-minded people in informal conversations.
but it's a common topic.
I think the real reason you are sick of politics is because you don't agree with the politics being discussed, not politics. The reason you don't talk about politics isn't being you are sick of it, but because "most of us are afraid of the outrage and call-out culture negatively impacting our careers."
Even in a throwaway account, you can't be honest with yourself. Are you really sick of politics, or are you just sick of other people's politics? What are you really trying to say. Your comment goes back and forth and it not clear. It's a throwaway account, so maybe you can actually say what you mean?
Man, the comments here are depressing. So much cynicism in one place.
Workers protests have been successful in the past (guess why you work 8h a day and have 2-day weekends?). I don't see why you criticise the employees that try to make their company better.
They don't need to and don't have to threaten they'll quit, they don't have to leave for non-profits. They can protest from within the company and try to make it better. Quitting is not the only way company can feel there's a problem. Lower morale of the team, fewer new ideas and initiatives coming from employees - these are visible things, and can make a change. How big a change? How successful change? I don't know, but I support the fact that people are trying. Even if they still get their salaries and still work at Google.
Call me cynical every day of the week and twice on sundays, I'm critical because at this point, a letter doesn't feel like they are taking much ownership of the issue.
People wanted those benefits for themselves, and there's little question of trying to reap benefits for one's self and then push the potential downsides elsewhere.
I realize climate change is a broad societal issue that does indeed heavily involve externalizing costs to society, but I think it's difficult to dispute that the ideal scenario would have no impact on them, and when it comes to Google's business and other employees, the outcomes probably slant negative.
Are there employees who don't mind working with energy companies? Are there people who explicitly don't want to limit Google's customer base? Do they make Google worse? Should we be critical of them?
The title says "protesting" but that's not what is happening.
Group of workers they made a request and wrote a letter asking for release a company-wide climate plan that commits to cutting carbon emissions entirely.
The most depressing thing is that people don't read the articles posted.
I really wish we'd see Google employees protesting AMP or abusive search practices...
There's so much Google is doing to directly damage the technology ecosystem. It seems silly to protest some customer's business when Google itself is generating a ton of protest worthy things.
I don't care about Google employee's opinions on Big Oil or ICE but I absolutely care about their opinions on removing URLs from search results and hijacking link clicks. The latter is something they can and should fix as they created the problem in the first place.
All AMP pages are about 10 % size of standard pages - at least for the newspapers and blogs. Until you tell all your webdevs/managers to remove all tracking+loading 25 scripts from universe...
Please keep AMP.
From Guardian, BBC to Washpost or our national dailies - it is horribly slow. Our dailies also show
'notifications' even on desktop!
AMP is dangerous precisely because it does solve problem. The catch is that the solution comes with strings attached, and those strings contribute to establishing Google as a web monoculture.
They don't download less bytes, they just throw them away. It's a solution to a different problem (that the site has become unusable, not that it loads unbearably slow)
Disclaimer: I'm a googler, my options are my own, I am not connected to the AMP project.
I mean, it's a good quip, but it's autocorrect, and we don't get stock options we get restricted stock units :P
One of the reasons why I work at Google is, as a former web developer I didn't feel AMP was a problem. I did feel MAVEN was a problem, despite what that could do for my stocks. I get the criticism and do think AMP has a lot of problems, but I also think it's crazy that's what we are talking about in an article about oil and gas activism. /Shrug
If Googlers weren't criticizing their own company's behavior there wouldn't be news stories every week about the new thing Googlers are criticizing Google about.
I find that Googlers as a whole are way more willing to criticize Google (both publicly and internally) than employees any other company I've worked for.
No, that solves nothing that AMP solves. Your comment is disinformation that make it seem like a non-issue.
Bandwidth is a real problem in developing countries that I feel people are not taking seriously. I don't think you understand the difference AMP makes.
some developing countries. Cambodia (well, Phnom Penh) mobile data rates are amazing, way better than Australia (for example).
Seeing tuk-tuk drivers earning $20/day watching YouTube non-stop while waiting for fares is weird. They definitely aren't going to see a difference from AMP.
It's very easy for someone in a country with good internet to have opinions about AMP. Their hate for it is apparently more important than people from developing countries being able to access internet.
Exactly. It's kind of amazing how so many people can't conceive that others may have different moral codes than them. Or who think that recognizing those differences must mean one has to defend them all.
AMP makes some trade offs, and not everyone is happy with those trade offs, but pretending that it exists due to some nefarious ulterior motives rather than making UX of the web better makes talking about it impossible.
If you don't like AMP, at least start by admitting that the problem AMP solves exists.
As a user, I prefer to see the actual website, rather than Google's walled garden version. Hopefully Web browsers will begin to add an 'avoid AMP version' preference.
> There's so much Google is doing to directly damage the technology ecosystem. It seems silly to protest some customer's business when Google itself is generating a ton of protest worthy things.
Probably because employees motivated enough to protest value the actual ecosystem more than the technological one, and care more about detention camps at the border than an url format? (just a wild guess)
Your comment is essentially "How can we care about A when someone's suffering from B in Kolechia?" which is a emotionally manipulative argument, actually.
You still can, and should pay attention to issues one step away from you.
That's not at all what I am saying.
What I am saying is that if you are surprised by the fact they are protesting against ICE/Big Oil and not way more trivial (in the grand scheme of things) and tech-centered things, then you are living in a bubble.
I am not saying it would be wrong that they protest AMP and not ICE, just that you can't be surprised it doesn't happen.
As for bubbles we are all living in them. For example, by being an American-based activist, you believe your US-centric disagreements around enforcement of immigration policies to be a global issue. Which looks funny for someone from outside, like me. I would say that long queues for cancer treatment in my country is more important for me. Your bubble is not holier then mine, or any other human out there.
I am not American (nor living or ever lived in the USA), I am not an activist. :)
I am just able to look at the situation from the point of view of people protesting (I think it's called empathy), and I can understand why, for them, protesting ICE/Big Oil, is more important than protesting amp.
That makes your bubble interesting, although not unique. Your comment looks like an absolutist statement about importance hierarchy, and you don't feel equally for malvosenior, so it's not necessary empathy, could be association. "From point of view" - that makes sense, but when that point is so global one ignores own backyard for years, there are questions avout sincerety like malvosenior raised.
That argument would be emotionally manipulative, but that isn't the major problem here.
Society's use of oil and gas is a totally political question of how much pain we experience in the near term vs the long term and who pays for any trade-offs that get made. It is not kosher for employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals.
Particularly because Google's position in the world is to provide people with facts and evidence - if they are being pressured internally by political actors then that compromises their trustworthiness as a search provider. They aren't a traditional media organisation where a page full of propaganda and lies is par for the course and everyone knows it. People expect them to use a politically neutral algorithm.
Are there people who believe that we need "urgent and decisive action" on political topics who have influence over the search index? How are they using that influence? What would happen if the next generation of employees have a radically different political view? These aren't new questions; Google's rankings are always going to be an interesting subject - and there is every chance that someone is running a smear campaign with stories of these intercompany issues. However, they are the important questions when Google employees do something political.
> It is not kosher for employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals.
What's the difference between employees of a company pushing for political change versus company executives using their position and influence to affect politics?
The answer is there is none. A company is founded by people, and people run the company, either as workers, shareholders, or both. In the end, this is a good sign for us regular people. We want change, and the only way to get it is to get political. Either that, or riots.
> What's the difference between employees of a company pushing for political change versus company executives using their position and influence to affect politics?
The executives shouldn't be doing that either. However, the core role of the executive is to decide how to deploy a companies resources. That is a pretty substantial difference.
> We want change ...
'We' is presumably a group of people living in a democratic first world country. We have systems for deciding what 'we' want, and it frequently spits out results that suggest 'we' do not want change.
> People expect them to use a politically neutral algorithm.
There is no such thing as a politically neutral algorithm. Algorithms exist to implement decisions that have been previously made, and these decisions are political in nature. Neutrality is the name given to people and institutions that support the status quo, and therefore they cannot be viewed as apolitical, even though, for lack of understanding, many believe to be operating outside of politics.
> Neutrality is the name given to people and institutions that support the status quo
Strongly disagree. If google censors information relating to Tiananmen Square, that supports the status quo without being neutral. If they don't filter that information out they undermine the status quo while remaining neutral. I could at least understand the position that no censorship can be construed as being politically opposed to censorship, but I don't really think that's the case in all cases; it is simpler to make a tool for finding knowledge in the general case than it is to make a tool that additionally filters that knowledge on ideological grounds.
China is not the status quo in the US. Thus, it is very easy for Google to pretend to be neutral regarding political facts occurring there. But even that is not entirely true. The Tiananmen Square events are very important for the narrative of western governments against China, so what appears there has also a political connotation.
It's an arbitrary example of information which is commonly censored to support the status quo, if you want an example targeted at America we could just as easily use pirated media.
> Society's use of oil and gas is a totally political question of how much pain we experience in the near term vs the long term and who pays for any trade-offs that get made. It is not kosher for employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals.
lol, yes, when it comes to oil and gas, it's widely expected that companies not push for political goals. Oil and gas companies companies steer well clear of those politics. Yep.
Your comment is the least charitable possible interpretation of the above user's statement, and adds nothing except for biting sarcasm to the discussion.
I hope that every user here tries to leave hacker news a better, more thoughtful place than they found it.
> Your comment is the least charitable possible interpretation of the above user's statement
Please, do tell, then. Because "that's not a nice reaction" is not the same as an uncharitable interpretation.
It's ridiculous on its face to call for employees of a company to not engage in politics and define the use of oil and gas as political and therefore out of bounds, when the actions being taken here are engaging with the actions of oil and gas companies.
(leaving aside the idea that it's ok for me, internet commentator, to have strong opinions, but not the employees that make some product I use)
You interpreted "employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals" as "companies not push[ing] for political goals" in order to sarcastically respond.
There is a difference between a company and it's individual employees, and rephrasing the statement such that "employees of a company" is replaced with "a company" in order to mock a user is rude and also not substantive.
> There is a difference between a company and it's individual employees, and rephrasing the statement such that "employees of a company" is replaced with "a company"
Unless there's a good argument that managers and executives are somehow different than other employees, companies pushing for political goals absolutely are employees of a company using their position to push private political goals.
I agree, but most people have a limited amount of energy they are willing to expend on political causes. It takes time & effort to rally people around a common cause - hopefully these issues will have their day, but absent organizing machinery you can really only get people to care about big-ticket items rather than slowly creeping ones.
No. Someone raised the question of which cause should be the priority. In such a context, it is absolutely 100% fair game to talk about why someone would be more motivated to care about one cause than another.
Or to borrow a far older phrase: "First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye."
That's an interesting saying, thanks for sharing. Just today morning I was listening to an audiobook that mentioned something similar _ "physician, heal thyself so you may heal thy patient...".
At this point it's looking like the potential to kickstart a professional "activism" career is becoming a fringe benefit at Google. Given that, it's probably best to protest things that will win the attention of mainstream [non-tech] audiences so as to position oneself for the maximum possible upside.
> Are you implying that the Googlers involved are doing this to advance themselves?
I'm stating the obvious fact that former Googlers have made themselves notable by engaging in public activism while at the company. Both conservative and liberal. If one dreams of becoming an activist and one happens to work at Google there are footsteps to follow in.
Insofar as personal advancement goes. While there are exceptions, it should be fair to expect that what one does at work may be somehow related to personal advancement. This can be advancement in terms of getting promotions, growing skills, or establishing a reputation.
Wholly selfless people aren't the norm in corporate work environments. That's fine. You can be a good person and not wholly selfless.
Or they know that by attacking core technology decisions, search, privacy, they risk their very livelihoods and their bonus RSUs? Most won't risk their family's financial future and a half-million dollars.
https://www.levels.fyi/
Whereas protesting something separate from corporate that is a safe (because let's face it, separating kids from their parents is incredibly messed up), probably won't jeopardize their job.
Maybe at a micro-level, optimizing AdWords so that users "click more ads" is probably an incredibly empty job. Maybe by protesting something more virtuous, it gets them through their day jobs?
This is, of course, assuming that the very people implementing the things people here think they should protest don't think those things have value and should be implemented.
Yeah. You know the universal moral truth, and nobody could possibly disagree with you; everyone who claims so is actually just an hypocritical sellout.
They prefer to point fingers at other industries and say that their money is dirty. What they forget is that tech is an enabler to other industries - not and end in itself.
While I agree I don't think AMP is a good example since it's not unanimously considered a bad thing. I like it and so do many other people in countries with bad internet connections.
AMP is a requirement to push your search ranking for Google searches. So it essentially can become a requirement and a mechanism to lock people into the eco system. I don't get why I shouldn't absolutely detest it.
Exactly, I remember Google promoting tools to improve your website for years prior to AMP. Yet, we ended up with an insanely bloated web. AMP might not be the perfect solution but shows me as a user that mobile news sites can be comfortable. Also, I always had the feeling that the AMP team seemed pretty receptive to community input, I don't have any first hand experience, though.
I have great internet and like it - sometimes I think I had a cache hit - but it’s just amp. For some reason it usually is also less bogged down w ads - any idea why?
Why do you think AMP is bad? Opinions of HN bubble hardly represent anything universal. Actually HN is the only place I see people thinks AMP is the most evil thing in Internet.
Believing cached webpages and the visibility of URLs on search results is somehow comprable to the effects of oil pollution has got to be right at the peak of HN absurdity.
> something they can and should fix as they created the problem in the first place
Isn't the other view that this is exactly why Google employees aren't objecting?
Not just in a "biting the hand that feeds you" sense, either. There's a selection effect in place: anyone currently working at Google either developed those practices, supported their use, or wasn't upset enough to avoid working there. Working with oil and surveillance gets protested precisely because it's not central to what Google employees do; it makes those projects easier to stop, and means that there are people who both work at Google and reject those projects.
> There's so much Google is doing to directly damage the technology ecosystem.
The best way to counter that is to work on alternatives.
I've always wondered why search couldn't be like DNS or server-side caches; every server could index all the content that passes through it, and clients would query all nearby servers.
Other HNers have previously said that indexing is the easy part; it's providing relevant results and reducing spam that's hard. Well, when the indexing is freely available to everyone, maybe we could use on-device client apps to navigate that index, each with our own preferences.
Going by the trend, googlers probably expect their plumbers, electricians, banks and other company employees that provide service to Google protest about AMP :)
> The latter is something they can and should fix as they created the problem in the first place.
That is whole point you see. Activists like these don't want to do anything. I would even say that they actually even don't want their own protests to succeed. They protest only for the sake of protesting.
When you right-click and copy, Javascript code runs which replaces the link with the real URL. If you simply click on it, however, you get a tracking URL which then imperceptibly quickly redirects to the real URL.
>I don't care about Google employee's opinions on Big Oil or ICE but I absolutely care about their opinions on removing URLs from search results and hijacking link clicks. The latter is something they can and should fix as they created the problem in the first place.
Such a contervetional saying, but I get what you mean.
They have more authority in their niche so they should fight for rights in something they are expert at.
But I do think that the fact Google employees are protesting against the company deal with Big Oild is good because it generates a lot of PR and awareness around the subject,
Exactly like how Blizzard cause the situation in HK to be x10 more viral
It's really not about broadcasting their opinions to you, it's about getting the company to make changes that help mitigate climate change, which threatens the safety of everyone on planet earth?
Thats the ultimate destination. But it's also where they will meet the maximum resistance. They have to build momentum with easier victories before the assault on the main gates.
That's how culture changes.
Direct attacks on status quo culture will always fail cause Defenses are already in place to squash them.
I can only agree. It is like in our country where people are donating for "poor african children" by UNICEF while there are thousands of people living in 100 miles radious where they could help them much more efficiently by giving them food, shelter, even warm word, without half of their effort (money) sinking into endless pit of UNICEF organisation.
Same thing here. Instead of fighting the fight where they could benefit whole internet by obstructing google, lets say it mildly, shady bussiness, they are fighting for some strange, far away couses with doubtfull results (or even - any results). Not saying it is worse than doing nothing but it is more like PR (company or personal) than anything else, somewhere close to: "let us talk, talking doesnt hurt and it doesnt change anything, so lets discuss some more".
While I, as a Googler, don't approve of every decision the company makes, I don't think any of them are going to cause a mass extinction event, so climate change is a higher priority for me.
> I really wish we'd see Google employees protesting AMP or abusive search practices...
I'd like to see oil company workers protesting the oil companies, or ICE employees freeing children from detention centers, but we all know why that isn't a thing -- folks don't apply to such work if they don't believe in the core mission.
If you as a tech worker dislike Google's practices, you should attempt to dissuade your employer from financially supporting Google. If they persist, you can go public about your objections, organize a strike, or quit.
People are talking about the sort of general idea of politics vs profit, but actually I don't think that's the issue. There are tonnes of companies that are political. The problem is that Google doesn't have a coherent approach to their political position. Frankly, I think this is a self-created problem by talking way too much about politics and encouraging people to bring their politics to work, but taking very little action to actually respond to their employees. Rather than taking the hint that Google were just all-talk, employees decided they were going to force Google to take action and now there are literally no guard rails around what is a political issue and what isn't and what is up for debate and what isn't.
How long is it before some Google employee starts kicking up a fuss about the ethical issues surrounding Google's core business?
It's deeper than that. Two decades ago, Google didn't exist. A decade ago, they were still touting "Don't be evil" with most people believing them.
Many companies are openly evil to a degree, but there is generally a strong self-selection at work - if one isn't keen on blowing up kids in far off lands, then one does not even send a resume to Raytheon! But Google simply hasn't been around long enough in their unabashed-Skynet state for this to have had an effect.
So instead we've got a contingent that signed up thinking they were "disrupting" the status quo to make the world better, yet now find themselves at the center of the modern surveillance and control apparatus. And so that cognitive dissonance comes crashing down in different ways, one of them being trying to change the company into what they thought it was.
It’s always easier to think someone else should do something [that won’t really affect you personally] so that you feel good about yourself vs taking the hard actions involved in making changes yourself.
In this case wanting their employer to do something - safe in the knowledge that google is so big it won’t show up in their paycheck. I would be shocked to learn (and this is conjecture on my part) that the typical google employee leads a truly low carbon lifestyle (petrochemical, electricity, transportation included)
I highly doubt that Google employees, who earn in the top 10% of incomes in one of the highest-per-capita emissions countries in the world, have a low carbon lifestyle by any standards.
The AWS and Azure sales people are giddy with joy right now. If Google does not strongly repudiate the protest, Google Cloud is saying that Defense companies, Oil and gas companies, and Car companies (except Tesla) are unwelcome on Google Cloud.
these types of companies make up a large proportion.
In addition, other companies such as Big Pharma, Health Insurance and Big Banks which are unpopular with the left would also be worried about when they would be the focus of a new protest.
> News alert: choosing not to do evil is not always compatible with maximizing profit.
I am so sick and tired of this attitude. In what world is working with the military / defense contractors evil? Do people really believe that the military is inherently evil? Is there literally no regard to history, or the fact that not having a military is basically tantamount to allowing other countries to do whatever they want with you?
Good! Employees should have a say in how their labor is used.
Lotta people will say "if you don't like it, quit" but I've never understood this. Running away isn't the only course of action available. So let's be clear: those who say this are making an "ought" statement (if you don't like what a company is doing, you ought to quit and let them do what they want) rather than an "is" statement (if you don't like what a company is doing, the only thing you can do is quit). Really illuminates the belief underlying this sentiment: corporate power is not to be questioned.
Employees want a say in the governance of the corporation. Most corporations have no mechanism for this leading to impromptu employee protests over the issue of the day.
To have more influence over the governance of a corporation, the employees could push for a bicameral governance structure. E.g., have the board of investors elected directors with the president/CEO running the company, but also create a second board, a board of employee elected directors. The employee elected directors are elected by the employees of the corporation (1 employee = 1 vote). In order for a resolution (e.g., setting c-suite compensation or identifying types of clients the company will not cater to) to pass, both the board of investor elected directors and the board of employee elected directors must pass the resolution.
A benefit to the c-suite of this style may be that the employee elected directors can provide better feedback about the concerns of the workers before the workers start protesting and come up with solutions that are acceptable to both sides.
Your comment is one big straw man. I don't think most reasonable people believe that corporate power should never be questioned. What people mean when they question whether employees would quit over an issue is that, if the employees aren't willing to quit over a cause, then that puts into question the authenticity of the demands being made. Signing a petition, sending letters, calling journalists, and posting on Twitter are low effort and low risk activities(aka slacktivism) that even casual activists can carry out, and just because someone demands something doesn't mean that they actually care about the issue as much as the optics suggest.
While I think it's good to demand change within organizations, the demand to eliminate all carbon emissions is unreasonable, and usually such demands are made by people in a comfortable position with no real skin in the game.
Nobody is saying that their only option is to quit, and nobody is going to say that.
Given that this lever obviously works, why shouldn't employees use it?
I agree with you that the current actions being taken aren't exercising the full power available to employees, but absent a real union it's incredibly difficult to organize strike action (a much superior course of action to threatening to quit).
These are pretty low standards for "real changes."
You should not work at the company you are engaging in activism against. That isn't out of respect for the corporation in question, but rather for one's self. That's why the people who were truly against Google's unethical plans actually left the company. They didn't just sign some form online. They practiced what they preached. "Google shouldn't be helping the CIA murder people, and I shouldn't be working at Google."
How can one be their very best self if they are receiving relatively enormous paychecks working at a company with which they apparently fundamentally disagree on policies surrounding human rights?
How can one perform optimally at their place of employment when they are forced to cognitively take in the dissonance on a daily basis caused by the way their values clash with their employer's goals?
A "real union"? They don't need that, Google employees are making absurdly huge incomes at ridiculous starting salaries which are in no way representative of what multiple of productivity they offer the firm. They have decided their priorities supported working at an amorphous blob behemoth that cooked all their meals for them, walked their dog for them, and babysat their kids for them.
What this less-than-1%-minority in Google's employee needs to do is stop having their cake and eating it, too.
"Change is possible & most effectively driven from within the system" is a basic tenet of all democratic societies. Do you believe this?
You might say - well, Google is not a democratic society. But the point is that it can be. So people who hold these two beliefs are perfectly justified to work at Google, and indeed that is the most effective route to their goal: of producing their best work in service of a just society.
Your prescribed solution is to abandon hope of change and retreat to... where? Where can one find refuge, exactly? Are we cursed to flee forever?
> Signing a petition, sending letters, calling journalists, and posting on Twitter are low effort and low risk activities(aka slacktivism) that even casual activists can carry out, and just because someone demands something doesn't mean that they actually care about the issue as much as the optics suggest
Agreed. It's safe protesting, aka virtue signaling. If you accept a paycheck from Google, you are inherently complicit in whatever course of action Google takes. It doesn't matter how much noise you make from the inside, until you are willing to walk out door, it's just talk.
IMO Google hasn't changed dramatically overnight. They have shown their hand in regards to ethical/moral lines for a long time.
"What people mean when they question whether employees would quit over an issue is that, if the employees aren't willing to quit over a cause, then that puts into question the authenticity of the demands being made."
I don't understand this argument. If you genuinely care about fixing the issue, then why in the world would you quit when you can instead stay and fight and have greater impact? Actively fighting from the inside of a powerful corporation that has real power to make changes is a much bigger lever you can pull than just quitting. These people are willing to risk their jobs to fight for what they believe in; how is it reasonable to accuse them of faux activism?
A lot of sizable organisations are committed to eliminate all carbon emissions. Yes it's rarely done by starving organisations and people, that doesn't mean others shouldn't do it.
As someone concerned about climate change and very bullish on alternative energy, I still think this is a slippery slope. Google shouldn't choose who can use its services based on politics. GCP/Search/Maps should serve all legal businesses. This is both a moral (not legal) position and risk-averse one (who knows what employees will want to censor in 10 years).
I agree for "automatic" stuff / offers generally available to everyone. But I see no problem with Google avoiding a closer relationship / specific contracts.
> Good! Employees should have a say in how their labor is used.
The demand is "no business with them", not "no oil supporting business with them".
If Big Oil (and they're all looking into how to survive in a "beyond petroleum" future, to adapt the slogan BP espoused for a while) wants to use the cloud to do material science modelling (to pick some arbitrary possible use of cloud resource that an energy carrier company could have) or use map data to determine suitable places to help them transition off oil into renewables, they should pay somebody else for that service?
(Disclosure: I work at Google, not in Cloud, haven't seen that letter, didn't sign that letter, don't have a car [or other direct dependency on oil] and am looking into renewables myself, although not at the level of doing material science)
It's very much a solved-many-times-over problem. Search the following terms: bike child seat, extracycle, bakfiets, Burley, kid bike tag along. Those will take you all the way from infancy to big enough to ride their own bike. You wouldn't need all of those, but you could probably buy one of each for a total cost of less than 1/4 the cost of one car.
Your baby entitles you to drive, thereby endangering and impoverishing everyone around you? Yeah you're right, there's an out-of-control sense of selfish entitlement in America.
Many houses located in towns and suburbs across the entire United States have no public transportation. I suppose we should vilify all those who decided to live 20 miles away from a hospital and don't wish to ride a bike that far after giving birth. I won't comment further as I see no point in the discussion.
What in the world gave you the impression that they were being self-centered or entitled? They literally just said they don't have a car as context for their statement.
The bit about the car (which might change soon, but that would be a small EV, so still not oil-bound), within the context of all the other disclosures, was mostly to say that I'm not "pro oil" in any way, even when I seem to argue against Googlers asking Google to choose its customers in a certain way.
> I think there is a self-centered entitled view around the USA which to me, seems out of control.
That's usually the argument used when Americans say they need a car, because they lack public transport. For people living in say Copenhagen it's completely possible to have children and not own a car.
This seems only tangentially relevant ... babies can be transported just as well in prams, pushchairs, on buses, trains, aircraft, hovercraft, or even specially adapted cargo bicycles. Some of my more eco-conscious acquaintances have "Bakfiets" bikes for this purpose.
You can still own a car and advocate for renewable energy, better public transit, better cycling infrastructure, etc. You are right that most people in the US are forced or at least highly encouraged to own a car. It is not hypocritical to advocate for car free living while still owning one, since it is the only option in many places.
You must live in a huge bubble if you really don't know anyone without a car who has kids. The majority of the parents that live near me don't own cars.
You know that you can take strollers on buses and trains, right?
The majority of parents that live near me own cars. Anecdata is kind of useless here.
In 2017, the American Communittmy Survey showed that of the 46m households with 3+ people, approximately 44 million had 1 vehicle and 16 million had 3 or more vehicles.
If you see two parents and a child in America, it's more likely one of them thinks the moon landing is a hoax than that they do not own a car.
Clearly it's not flat-out impossible to have children without a vehicle if millions of people are doing it, by your own stats!
And those stats aren't suitable for this purpose (they're undercounting my millions more), as there are many one parent households, plus many parents who live in a household with others but who don't own cars themselves.
2 person households, 38 million with 1+ cars, 2 million without.
4+ person households are almost as likely to have 4 or more cars as 0 or 1 cars.
Single person households are almost as likely to have 2 or more cars as no car at all. (The dominant number of vehicles by far is, of course, 1.)
Of the 85 million households with more than one person, only 3 million have no cars at all. You can "undercount" and adjust all you want, you're talking 5%, maybe 7% maximum of "parents without cars."
Of course it's possible, in a few scattered geographic areas with high density and convenient public transit. But that's not almost any of America.
Personally I think all this manifestation of what "should" be political-sphere politics at work is a side effect of the complete brokenness of the politics sphere for having a substantive discussion about issues that might actually improve things. It's all been driven out by culture war and various sorts of loyalty-behaviour.
That and an acknowledgement of the huge amounts of power held by extremely valuable western companies. In some ways this is the logical conclusion of Citizen's United; if companies have a privileged voice (and running a media company is a huge megaphone!), then the best thing the public can do is attempt to wrest control of that voice. If they don't, it will be used against them on behalf of the CEO or a single wealthy owner.
Not to mention the political donations.
(Diffuse stockholders seem to have relatively little control over corporate voice as well.)
What's really illuminating is that you equate quitting with "running away". Quitting isn't "running away" -- it's the correct course of action if you object to what the company is doing. Sure, make your case first, but when you don't get your way, quit. It's even more remarkable that you make this comparison (quitting = running away) while pushing an anti-corporate message. I can hardly think of anything "more corporate" than equating quitting with running away.
I suspect the actual reason you object to quitting is that it involves sacrifice. It's easy to sign a petition or hold up a billboard but it's hard to quit your job. The problem with this approach is that humans define virtue based on sacrifice. We are deeply suspicious of virtue that doesn't involve sacrifice and we should be because that kind of virtue is indistinguishable from self-aggrandizement.
If you really want to "question corporate power" then don't work for a coporation. Of course the reason people refuse to follow this advice isn't because "they want to change the corporations from the inside" -- it's because they want money and a lifestyle that comes from working for a coporation while also claiming the moral highground.
Yeah yeah we've all read Taleb - no virtue without sacrifice and all that. I basically disagree with your premise that you can only question corporate power while not working for a corporation (strong "yet you participate in society, curious" energy [0]). Let's be clear here: humans banding together to accomplish goals greater than that which they are individually capable is a good thing. Now we just have to decide the governance model. Currently we have the unchallenged shareholder/executive system. Why not create a parallel power structure representing employees?
My perspective comes from Hannah Arendt and her opinion that goodness demonstrated publicly necessarily becomes corrupted.
> Let's be clear here: humans banding together to accomplish goals greater than that which they are individually capable is a good thing. Now we just have to decide the governance model. Currently we have the unchallenged shareholder/executive system. Why not create a parallel power structure representing employees?
Why are you so sure that you are motivated by a desire to improve the world? I think the correct assumption is that you are deeply selfish and, mostly, what you want is to maintain and bolster your advantageous position. I think your perspective is adequately explained by that assumption.
Even if we assume that you want to improve the world, why are you so convinced that you know how?
Of course it's selfish. I believe myself & my fellow workers should have more of a voice in how companies are run - more power. This is because I, yes, believe we can run the company better for society as a whole. I live in society and wish to live in an even better, more just society.
I do believe that putting more power into democratic structures (and thus more power into their constituents) will make society better, yes. Not really a fringe opinion. Not to get too frank but this type of nietzschean-style attack against the presumed underlying motivations of ideological opponents only really works if you're an exceptionally talented writer & study of human behavior.
> My perspective comes from Hannah Arendt and her opinion that goodness demonstrated publicly necessarily becomes corrupted
I checked your profile for info to contact you privately to ask, but there wasn't anything, so my apology for the public request. Could you suggest any of Arendt's writings, especially around this subject? I've seen her referenced in interesting contexts and would love to read more.
The bit about the impossibility of doing good in public is from The Human Condition. She gets it from Machievelli, who dared to "teach men how not to be good".
I'd recommend a collection of three essays called Crises of the Republic. If you like that, then check out The Human Condition.
Ascetics are valorized by the propaganda of those in power (such as the religious organizations that beatify people) because they pose no threat to them.
> it's because they want money and a lifestyle that comes from working for a coporation while also claiming the moral highground
If you think people work at a corporation for money and lifestyle, then you are living in a bubble. I'm betting most people work at a huge company are doing menial labour and hate it.
Good! Employees should have a say in how their labor is used.
Employees of claw hammer factories are better off not knowing what I do with their products in the dark of a Saturday night. Let's just say I'm not hammering nails.
OTOH, claw hammer factory workers are making a product that is legal to manufacture, legal to sell, and the intended use for said hammer is also entirely legal. You will find few protestors at the gates of the Stanley Corporation because of what folks might do with a hammer or a screwdriver. After all, they're really just trying to make tools for folks to build a nice dog house for your new puppy. And we all like puppies. Did Stanley just take on a big contract to supply the tooling for the construction of a new ICBM plant? Somebody got that contract, why didn't I hear about the protests?
To me, this just sounds like folks that are itchin' to protest something, and this is all they could find. Google's not making ICBMs here. If one feels strongly about the issue, do what I've done in the past and quit. ("You didn't tell me the DoD is your only customer.")
Quit is the real threat you have.
If every truly valuable employee threatens to quit when company is going into directions that are non-ethical, the world would be a in adifferent place.
No, because then I'll have to entities to negotiate with.
I can be in disagreement with both, so I'll rather be with just one, the value I provide to a company should be enough that my quit threat is good enough, otherwise, plenty of companies out there.
Google isn't an employee-owned company but I imagine that they do own a decent amount of stock due to the compensation structure. Maybe they could use that as an avenue to have their voice heard?
The structure of the company stock grants the founders 10x votes per share, about half of the shares owned by the public have 1x vote per share, and the other half have zero votes per share.
Googler's stock compensation is entirely in the non-voting class. Furthermore, most employees convert their google shares into cash or reinvest it in the broader market as it vests instead of just being long GOOG.
Unfortunately this is a multi-faceted problem that transcends hypocritical employees who pick and choose about what to be outraged about (you work at a company that amasses your user's data and uses it in all sorts of morally questionable ways, but you get mad when they work with other morally questionable firms? Really?).
> (you work at a company that amasses your user's data and uses it in all sorts of morally questionable ways, but where you draw the line is when your employer engages in business dealings with other morally questionable firms? Really?)
I feel like climate change and aggregating user data for ads are... not morally equivalent evils.
It's about responsibility and effectiveness: voyeur-capitalism is something for which Google and it's employees are more directly responsible for, and one which they might be in a better position to solve (though I suspect the solution may ultimately come from a competitor).
Climate change may be a bigger issue, but that doesn't mean the actions of Google's employees are going to be effective at dealing with that issue.
Fair point. I can tell you the people I know who work at Google predominantly feel very uncomfortable with the aim of total surveillance for profit. I suspect giving these same employees more of a say in the day-to-day running of the business - rather than big-ticket issues that are easy to assemble around - could lead to improved rights for users.
So let's say the googlers who are against their labor used in this fashion are just a vocal minority and the rest of the folks are largely ok with it and are simply quiet. What should happen?
I think there is a silent majority of people who are frustrated by the ongoing politicization of the workspace. They are quiet not because they don't care, but feel that it's rude to be so "loud" at work.
There could be a democratic structure in place where employees can elect internal representatives to conduct things and advocate for/against issues on their behalf; alternatively (and more Google's style) there could be a direct democracy vote on particular issues.
They do by finding a different employer. Vote with your time and attendance. If the employee is that disturbed by their employer's politics why would they continue to work there? This sounds incredibly entitled.
Google should just call their bluff. The company isn't going to "cut carbon emissions entirely", and I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. In the best case scenario, Google spends money to clean up their emissions and these same employees wonder why they're not seeing as big of pay raises.
I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, even if that means doing business with ICE, big oil, the military, etc. A CEO who continually turns away legitimate and legal business on moral grounds can be removed, and in some cases sued by the board of directors.
If you have qualms with working for a large corporation whose primarily purpose is to maximize value and profit within the boundaries of the law, then you need to find a non-profit or privately held firm that's more aligned with your values and flourish there.
You'd better believe that if these CEO's who say shareholder value isn't everything, stopped delivering on growth and earnings, they'd be shown the door real quick. They're free to say shareholder value isn't everything so long as they act as if it is.
Should the law be written this way? Probably not, but that's a much larger and somewhat tangential debate.
This is about a group of talented people who have the option to put some skin in the game and take their labor elsewhere, but who choose instead to put forth empty talk about the ethics of their employer all while enjoying the lifestyle that employer has offered them.
Part of maximizing profit is dependent upon being able to attract and retain top performing human resources. Another part is public perception: brand value and customer engagement. Yet another part in dependent on their network of partners, who might want to refrain from doing business with parties engaged in unsound (unethical) business practices.
Since large parts of these are hidden variables and only come to light when certain actions are taken, I would say it is actually in the shareholders best interest for employees to complain and strike. The alternative is that top talent is leaving the company, partners untie relations and customers seek alternatives.
Why not work to change things internally? Why run away? Clearly internal change is possible, so why do you want us to turn away from this course of action available to us?
That myth really needs to die... there is no law and no requirement of any business that dictates that shareholder value/profit must be primary focus above all else.
I really encourage you and anyone else that thinks this way to spend some time learning about the growing "Conscious Capitalism" movement.
A true disadvantage for publicly traded companies. That would mean for concious people that they have to work for privately owned companies.
Although you could always spin it like it would be a long time disadvantage to work with these kind of companies. I think shareholders are the ones that take the risk of people just not wanting to work under these conditions.
Google would degrade to be a career starter for gifted developers if shareholders will continue enforce their immediate profit expectations.
Basically that means that the legal obligation for profit maximization is a pretty crappy law. I doubt that people would stop investing without that legal handle.
It is a disadvantage and probably a bad legal framework, but it's the one that exists right now and companies are obligated to follow it, Google is no exception. When you go to work for a large corporation, this is one of the things you need to make peace with, and if you can't, you should work somewhere else so you can live according to your values.
I do work for a family owned company. A bit conservative at times, and the owners don't despise money, but there are honest attempts to become greener for example.
Still, I doubt you can make a rational argument that forgoing contract X is undermining shareholders in any honest court of justice if all factors are considered.
edit: And if employees are indeed protesting, the case will be much cleaner.
I don't think that's as useful an analogy when there's a million branches and it's easy to find another. Sure, in other industries people don't have the same luxury of speaking up.
Ffs, what a clueless bunch. Why do they have to bundle all their complaints and make it us vs. Them??
So now if you dislike ICE you have to dislike big oil also? And vice versa? What's next? Google should not do business with Chickfila because their employees dislike the ceo?
I mean I dislike google so the worse business risk with google. gets the bettet I say.
I am just afraid I will be put into a position where I either support lgbtq+climate change+blacklives matter+anti-china+anti-russia to use any tech service in the west or I learn chinese or russian and use their services. I mean, why are they so intolerant of anyone who does not conform to their very specific set of ideology and world view? They're worse than the people they fight. You can be lgbtq and work at chickfila just fine,you can be for green energy and work for ice,you can be against ICE and big oil will do business with you. No matter how correct they think they are,they cause more problems than solutions.
This is why otherwise sane people are trump supporters,because to support the alternative you have to conform to this long list of ideological views. Only intellectual cowards who can't be bothered to patiently discuss their views with their peers corner people into picking between two extremes -- where deviance is met with hostility. I refuse to accept any view or movement where I have to surrender critical thinking and be either for the movement or against it.
Now big oil has to band together with ICE? Good job on uniting your enemies against you! I can't accept any result from people like this. Ends don't justify means and freedom to think and disagree is very important.
We hear these stories all the time and I'm not sure "googlers are protesting" means 10 or 10,000 employees.
We've seen googler's post here indicate that various employee initiatives have varying levels of support but as far as media reports go they report them all the same.
The petition was signed by about 1,100 Googlers (from the article). Google has well over 100,000 full time employees so the number who signed represent around 1%
(for the benefit of those who take title seriously) They are not protesting, they made a request and wrote a letter asking for release a company-wide climate plan that commits to cutting carbon emissions entirely.
I think their suggestion that Google stops voluntarily selling their services for oil companies is wrong way to approach the situation. Only reducing the global demand for oil puts oil business out of business.
In some cases a boycott is just a tax for good ethics. If the boycott is indirect subsidy for those who don't care, it does not work.
You will eventually simply end up with a bifurcated system with Tech companies that will do business with certain companies associated with one side of the aisle, and other who will not. The money is already moving in that direction. Rupert Murdock often quipped that he started Fox News to serve a niche market: half the country (US). Wait until you have the Fox News equivalent of Google and Facebook and Twitter, willing to serve the Pentagon and Oil Companies and the other half of the country. Careful what you wish for.
If you work for Google, the most effective thing you can do to fight evil IMHO is to stop working for Google.
Stop helping Google create ever more refined digital portfolios on every internet user. Google does not intend for their digital portfolios to fall into the hands of the US Government, but if the US Government ever becomes significantly undemocratic, Google cannot stop that from happening -- and Google's management knows that or would know it if they would spend 5 consecutive minutes being genuinely curious about it.
Stop helping Google turn the web into an ever more refined machine for extracting money from web users while continuing to make the web less well-suited for important purposes it was originally well-suited for: namely the publication of textual and simple graphical information not motivated by profit. (The money flows from users of the web to organizations that use Google to advertise, then to Google.)
Google's insane appetite for growth already has it past the point where its principles are going out the window. Those go quietly, one by one, souls sold a nickel at a time, and with lots of self-deception and lies to the contrary. The culture is diluted with new people who do not share it, and when any group grows at 20% YoY, its culture won't last more than a couple years. Now at Google, senior leadership is more concerned with making that 23% YoY revenue bump than literally anything else. Along the way it just accidentally created a huge surveillance network that outclasses most of the world's intelligence services. Whoops.
Vote with your feet, not with your stomach. Google doesn't give a flying crap about technology except as a means to more power and money.
I think there's something weird about relying on corporations to be judges on other companies. I'm not trying to defend big oil, but I think the focus should be on more scrutiny on how government and other institutions deal with it. If googlers wants to actually change things maybe they should develop ways to monitor these agreements. There is a sense of arrogance in believing that (in this case googlers) know the best course of action on every issue - especially when they are unelected
If the leadership adopts favored positions as part of their values, the company can still thrive financially, for example Chick-Fil-A and Ben and Jerry's But if they give in to multiple pressures, they will be distracted from the business side.
The largest growth Google had was under a pretty strict position. On the contrary, if you grow and mutate to a faceless corp, you begin to have problems attracting talent and in consequence innovate further. Wouldn't be the first time.
Don't think their asking them to take a stand against advertising. So, you could make an argument that they should be focusing on making their product more addictive and stop with the distractions.
Sounds like you don't believe in voting with your wallet.
If enough people protest against Blizzard that they make a public statement at their party (BlizzCon) about how they were wrong perhaps they're feeling the heat? If enough people cancel their services with Blizzard over this, they're feeling a direct result of their political decision on their profit.
That just doesn't compute. If they literally were about ethics > profits or maximizing good, they wouldn't be putting their time into a massively for-profit operation. Collecting large checks and internal perks galore. They'd be more attracted to a non-profit.
Contributing your (probably unskilled-at-what-you’re-doing ) labour directly at a non-profit is far less effective than working your skilled, high paying job and donating the money.
I don't believe that profits are more important than ethics, just that it is impossible to satisfy various opinions on what ethics is, while maximizing profit
When laborers make it hard for companies to make a profit by doing evil with the products of their labor, which is the goal of acts like this, it will make it hard to make a profit without political (ie ethical) mindfulness.
Certainly, that will make it hard to make a profit. A company can do well financially when they have political and (what they consider to be) ethical mindfulness, as Hobby Lobby or Ben and Jerry's, to take opposite examples.
What happens when employees from both other end of the spectrum simultaneously demand action?
Factories used to position immigrant workers who spoke different languages beside each other so that they would not congregate and organize.
Not quite the same when you have thousands of highly intelligent people all speaking the same language, in the same building, connected to the world's fastest messaging system.
We will only see more of this, and I am happy for that.
If Googlers want to shoot their own feet off, I’m not seeing a problem with that. This isn’t improving their image as a tech company, and all they are doing is creating gaps in the market for someone else to go in and fill. In the long run, Google will probably lose a lot of business if they continue to give in to these protests.
Doesn't really apply. Oil companies exist because we buy oil -- both directly (fueling our cars) and indirectly (buying produce shipped from South America or clothing shipped from India). Saying "oil companies shouldn't have good IT solutions" doesn't really help anything.
It does, though. Refusing to assist with the destruction of our planet slows down the destruction of our planet. Why would I want to work to make these companies more effective?
Because when they're ineffective oil gets spilled. We have a vested interest in oil being produced as cleanly and effectively as possible until we can lessen our dependence on it.
Furthermore, the OPEC countries don't care at all and will happily sell you oil at a nice markup if Shell and Exxon can't.
This is the same argument in favor of building oil pipelines, because they spill less oil per mile than trucks or trains. It ignores second-order effects that is, since it's cheaper for the oil companies to operate, they'll produce even more oil than they otherwise would have. And we want them to produce less oil. Preferably none.
> they'll produce even more oil than they otherwise would have.
The production of oil is not the problem. They produce oil because we, as a society, have placed tremendous value on it. Once we no longer need oil they'll stop producing it.
This question is too easily dodged now that we have EVs that a typical googler can easily afford. The bigger issue is how much of the products they consume and wealth that comes their way are ultimately derived from cheap oil and petroleum products. Oil is the lifeblood of our economy. If you aren't directly dependent on it yourself, you're doing business with people who are
This is so dumb, I have no words. Google has the cleanest energy mix in the cloud business, and the strongest carbon neutrality commitments. If anything, their participation in these contracts will only reduce the carbon footprint compared to the alternatives. They're also not the only cloud provider, so if they don't go for it, Amazon or MS will be quite happy to oblige, spewing tons more CO2 into the atmosphere.
I see these Googler's point of view, but if Google refuses to have contracts with big oil, won't these companies just find another tech company to provide services for them? How is that going to help fight climate change? Wouldn't it be more effective for Google to still have deals with them but pledge that all net profits from those deals will go towards Alphabet's renewable energy projects?
All I hope for is Google to settle this amicably with the discontented employees and at same time not upset their clients.
Because, actions in both extreme would set a bad precedent for a tech giant like Google:
Extreme 1 - Fire the employees or serve them notice to shut up.
Extreme 2 - End contracts / don't sell further to big oil companies. In process, lose out vast sums of money and forever shut yourself out from the industry even if they discovered something called 'clean, sustainable oil' in future.
Surprisingly these protests appear to work. Last summer, employees protested a multi-billion dollar contract with the DoD and was subsequently not renewed for 2019. Albeit, their efforts may have been wasted since the work will just be transferred to another company and internal leaks indicate the project will still leverage Google’s cloud service.
This is what happens when you have a couple products that make approximately one hundred percent of your revenue on auto-pilot, and everything else is just hazy synergy plays. People find ways to entertain themselves.
One, it is my understanding that most plastic is made directly from oil. If we dropped fossil fuels tomorrow and stopped extracting oil for energy production reasons...wouldn't we still need oil companies to manufacture plastic? I understand there are growing movements to reduce plastic usage as well, but I also think there would be construction niches that only plastic can serve (say, car bumpers). Is the next move synthetic plastic and then we can say goodbye to oil forever?
Second, in response to this quote:
> “If Google is going to confront its share of responsibility for the climate crisis, that means not helping oil and gas companies extract fossil fuels,” Ike McCreery, an engineer in Google’s cloud division
You know that saying, if you're going to do a job, do it right? This is my problem with these tech deal protests. The purpose of all technology is to make work more efficient and more correct. If we deny access to technology for political reasons, aren't we making the problem worse by making it easier for these companies or orgs to make mistakes? For example, imagine if ocean mapping companies denied data requests by oil rig operators. Chances are they're still going to drill (because shareholders demand it), but now they'll be in the dark and the odds of an uncontrollable spill happening shoot up. Similarly, if ICE is denied tech access, it severely harms the good parts of the org (human trafficking / child exploitation prevention, catching violent illegal immigrants). It is possible for an organization, especially at the scale of a government agency, to do both good and bad at the same time. Hell, I'm sure even Googlers have similar thoughts about certain teams within Google itself.
I'm sure that losing GitHub access won't hurt ICE that much, and losing Google Cloud is just a bump in the road for oil companies, but the end goal of these protests is to get as many service providers on board as possible. While it is every company's right to choose its customers, there seems to be a common theme among tech protests that we are only doing harm. The article quotes Google Anthos as one of the services provided in the contract. From a quick glance Anthos appears to be some sort of glorified Kubernetes thing.
I hope it is not controversial to state that Kubernetes can be used for both good and evil. It is a containerization platform, not a moral arbiter.
> “It’s devastating to think the infrastructure I’ve helped build over the last five years would be used to help incarcerate climate refugees,” they said.
Again, it cannot be that black or white. The same software that manages prisons can also manage orphanages and homeless shelters. You can use an Excel sheet for a lottery...or genocide.
The only way we can stop bad things from happening for sure is to vote. Cancelling contracts will not deter bad actors as long as they can hire someone else to do the same work, and even if every company in the Western world declines a contract on moral ground (which they are privileged to do, given they make enough money to actually get a say in what contracts to take), there are hundreds of thousands of companies in the 3rd world that will do anything for the same contract. I mean, there was an article about a Polish troll farm on the front page of HN just yesterday. Do you think a simple protest will stop them?
Here's a thought: Google is one of the richest companies in the world. They could donate $10 million to every politician in Congress right now if they vow to vote yes on legislation banning fossil fuels entirely. $10M would be enough to live comfortably till the end of your days, Big Oil lobbyists and Fox News positions be damned. For a measly $5B Google could end climate destruction tomorrow.
Bribery is legal in the U.S. through lobbying. Why do we only let bad actors use it? We have trillion dollar companies with heavy liberal bases and they still donate to Republicans!
I don't think these Googlers are wrong to protest these contracts, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that their time would be better spent trying to buy off the Federal government and instituting wide scale regulations that would kill every oil company immediately, rather than trying to cut out a few contracts. Gotta start small though, I know.
I'm not sure that people are really expecting to see the end of oil, including for plastic; more likely it's the necessity to ramp up rhetoric. If you demand "the end of oil", you might get a few percentage reduction in production. If you demand "a small decrease in production", you get nothing.
Mind you, the plastics process itself produces greenhouse gases, and occasionally the hugely wasteful event of flaring. Every now and again either Exxon or Shell lights a huge volume of gas on fire which can be seen in a fifty mile radius near my house to remind us that individual action on CO2 emission is meaningless. It needs to be banned entirely. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-4...
Comments like these are the reason we never see Google employees openly post here anymore. We used to get comments directly from the source whenever Google released something new.
No, they post here but anonymous to hide from their own coworkers and possibly management. while some posts here may be hostile to their point of view they cannot directly affect their job like being identified by those who sjw at work.
I'm disappointed yet sadly not surprised that the current top comment here is a (so far successful) attempt to hijack and equate protests about Big Oil with AMP.
AMP came about because mobile sites suck. My only beef is there weirdly doesn't seem to be an easy opt out (for the user or content producer). While that's less than ideal how can you possibly equate that with:
- Environmental damage
- Climate change
- Developing AI to help the military better kill people with drones (a previous Googler protest)
Like, what twisted world view would try and equate any of the above with AMP? If so, I seriously suggest you get over yourselves. I find that attitude entitled and, honestly, reprehensible.
The other problem you see here is Whataboutism. Like, "oh sure, Big Oil hid research into the effects of fossil fuels on climate change but what about [my pet issue]?"
Not everything has to be about everything. Not tackling every issue doesn't invalidate the protest against a particular issue. Whataboutism is what allowed the likes of Trump to get elected.
Google's actions might be orders of magnitude less evil than Big Oil's (and I don't see why they chose AMP as their example over a more salient point). But Google also has orders of magnitude more influence over Google's decisions than they do big oil's. It looks like they're repenting for their lack of self control at home by pushing their moral standards onto others at no direct cost to themselves.
I'm just saying it feels incongruous to hear Googlers act moral about "big oil" while making their money maintaining humanity's largest surveillance system, ya know...?
... and this is on top of their general shameless political activism. I wonder at what stage this kind of "using my company's big guns to bully what i don't like" is considered social terrorism? Google 's employees, smart as they may be, are not the representatives of the people. Yet they act as if their political power is legitimate
