
Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore - mancerayder
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23/google-doesn-t-want-employees-debating-politics-at-work-anymore
======
oppositelock
I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal
political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there
are far fewer people.

There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths
like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There
was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the
majority view, the majority engaged in heckling, ridicule, etc. It was already
becoming an echo chamber, and as the majority grew, their tactics grew more
petty and vicious. However, this was expected in the politics groups, and you
knowingly entered that fray.

What seems to be happening a lot lately is that politics are spilling over
into large, global mailing lists which target a whole geographic region, so
many people get involved, and when a company has 200k employees and
contractors, you will find some outliers in there who will pick nasty fights.

It only makes sense that they're cutting down on something that has turned
toxic. It's a bit disappointing to hear, since I personally enjoyed the
occasional, honest discussion with smart people of other viewpoints - these
good discussions made the much larger number of ridiculous ones, bearable.

~~~
stcredzero
_I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal
political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there
are far fewer people._

It sounds like the work culture at Google has rediscovered the emergent
factors which gave rise to the traditional cultural strictures against talking
about money, politics, and religion.

Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguably an intellectually
friendly environment, where more people than average understand how to talk in
ways that get closer to truth, the inadvertent experiment conducted by Google
over the past 15 years or so should hold a lot of weight.

 _It only makes sense that they 're cutting down on something that has turned
toxic. It's a bit disappointing to hear, since I personally enjoyed the
occasional, honest discussion with smart people of other viewpoints - these
good discussions made the much larger number of ridiculous ones, bearable._

It sounds like the overall cost-benefit tradeoff supports Google corporate's
decision. (There were externalities beyond the discussions themselves.)

~~~
nostrademons
I remember the Founder's Letter included with Google's IPO in 2004 - "Google
is not a traditional company. We do not intend to become one." It looks like
they became one.

The other interesting takeaway for me is how _long-term equilibria can leave
holes that may be exploited by short-term-focused actors_. When Google was
young, it's say-anything culture was a big competitive advantage: it let them
hire people who were nearly unhireable elsewhere because they were too free
with their opinions or too difficult to work with, and it let people be more
open about their emotions, which is a prerequisite for creativity. Many of
these people were immensely productive, building key systems. But as Google
grew, this same culture would've led to the destruction of the company, so
eventually management is forced to clamp down on it. Not before making the
founders and many employees fabulously wealthy and reshaping the industry,
though.

~~~
manigandham
Every company becomes a "traditional" company because only traditional
companies have survived. If alternative structures worked well then we
would've seen them by now.

Also I'm willing to be that a startup's lack of bureaucracy and momentum lets
it experiment and move faster rather than just a carefree internal attitude.
I've been in midsize companies on both sides of the free-culture spectrum and
have never noticed any major difference in talent or capabilities.

~~~
methodover
> If alternative structures worked well then we would've seen them by now

Well let’s not go this far. Human civilization has existed for a tiny portion
of time, modern civilization even less so. There’s PLENTY of time for better
structures to be discovered.

~~~
ivan_gammel
Within current historical and cultural context, legal and technology
frameworks etc the dataset is big enough to give some confidence that better
structures won’t be found tomorrow or in the next 5 years.

~~~
sametmax
Somebody probably said that just before an innovation is made. Many times.

~~~
Judgmentality
For every time someone said it and was wrong, I bet there were a hundred times
someone said it and was right.

~~~
bzbz
Come on, this isn’t a pissing contest. You can both sit down and relax without
arguing through such subjective and unsubstantiated opinions.

~~~
Judgmentality
It's not a pissing contest; it's a misunderstanding of giving equal weight to
two incredibly different probabilities. When Fox News says it's important to
have a discussion about climate change and give 50% time to those for and
against it, they are conveniently ignoring that 98% of scientists believe in
climate change and 2% don't. But they are essentially saying both viewpoints
are equally important, even though one is widely accepted to be true by the
scientific community.

Yes, it's certainly possible that thinking different (or being contrarian, or
stubborn, or creative, or whatever you want to call it) will lead to something
great! It is also extremely unlikely unless you are in a brand new field such
as quantum physics 100 years ago that whatever idea you had has already been
considered by countless people before you and you are not special.

The reason most startups fail is more than just bad execution. It's because
most startups weren't meant to exist because they just don't solve a problem
people are willing to pay enough to make the company a profit. That doesn't
mean you shouldn't try it if you really think you're onto something - but you
should be aware the odds are wildly against you.

------
magduf
This is pretty strange to me. I've worked in a bunch of very different places,
including Intel Corp. and also defense contractors and US government
installations, and people generally stayed away from political discussions
unless they were around people they already knew were like-minded. The only
place I saw political discussion turn really sour was at Intel when we had a
contractor who was extremely religious and conservative, and would talk
publicly about how homosexuals "offended" him, etc. We ended up not renewing
his contract because he was toxic.

At government places, political discussions were generally avoided. The Hatch
Act might have something to do with that (it's illegal to campaign for any
political candidate at a Federal workplace), but mostly I think people just
had good common sense. They did talk a little among themselves in the run-up
to the election, but it was in-person, with a buddy, not meant to be a public
discussion.

What's really shocking to me here is this revelation that there's actually
"global mailing lists" within the company where political talk is happening.
This, I cannot imagine ever seeing at any of my prior employers, ever. I
honestly can't imagine why any company would tolerate such a use of its
equipment this way. It's just a recipe for trouble.

~~~
closeparen
Many of my teammates are immigrants. Visa related uncertainty and progress are
major parts of their lives. The H1-B renewal lottery colors all future plans.
Finally getting a green card is like having a child or buying a house. When
the President tweets about blowing up NAFTA, my colleagues on TN-1s can no
longer be sure which country they'll live in six months from now. We tried to
go for drinks and couldn't get into the bar: my work friend's driver license
is expired and she can't get a new one while her visa application is in a
queue somewhere at DHS.

If we know each other _at all_ as people, immigration policy certainly comes
up.

~~~
scoobyyabbadoo
>Many of my teammates are immigrants. Visa related uncertainty and progress
are major parts of their lives. The H1-B renewal lottery colors all future
plans. Finally getting a green card is like having a child or buying a house.

Getting a Green Card shouldn't be _that_ easy for H1B holders. An H1B visa is
a temporary visa and in that time they should be transferring skill knowledge
to American replacements.

~~~
mirceal
sure buddy. and all the brains the US is importing every year are also just
for knowledge transfer.

~~~
scoobyyabbadoo
Of course I agree with your sarcasm that it's more likely about population
replacement and wage reduction, but I'm just saying the public political
justification we were given for H1B was supposedly to temporarily cover our
skills gap.

------
devy
This article makes it seem like debating politics is a good practices in
workplace. It is NOT!

Talking politics in workplace is not professional - different political
opinions can wreck marriages, it can certainly wreck your job too! Just think
about what if your boss is having a completely different political opinions
than what you belief.

Also any major corporations leaning one side of the political party would
immediately alienate the other half the political spectrum and may risk losing
businesses who believe in the opposition political parties.

~~~
einhverfr
In the EU, freedom from discrimination on the basis of political opinion is
considered a fundamental right, and is mentioned as such in the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Private conversations about politics thus is entirely outside the scope of
what the company is allowed to care about. Public comments, for example on
global email lists, would be a different topic.

~~~
Excel_Wizard
Political opinion is a very strange protected class, and protection of it
seems unenforceable to me.

~~~
tomp
No stranger than religion, when you think about it. Both are completely
arbitrary (a personal choice), people get very emotional and defensive about
them, and they seem irrational if you don't share the beliefs.

~~~
humanrebar
Conviction is a better word than choice. People don't have a choice if a god
exists or if rent control works as intended.

They have convictions and these things are either true or false at the end of
the day. It's not purely a matter of preference.

------
fortran77
This is an eye opener.

> [Google] employees discussed at length [on internal message boards] whether
> Trump’s win meant it’s time for a violent revolution. “How do people cope
> with this?” one employee wrote. “I’ve never been part of a military or war
> effort before. … I don’t know how useful I’ll be.”

It's about time Google tells people to take their political revolution talk
somewhere else other than company internal discussion boards!

[https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-
james...](https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-
damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/)

~~~
fromthestart
People are rabidly dismissive of the project veritas expose, but articles with
quotes like this repeteadly show pervasive bias among Google staff which
aligns exactly with the accusations and candid management recordings within
the video [1]. The video is admittedly obnoxious and overly dramatic, but the
candid clips with exec Jen Gennai strongly suggest that these political biases
are leaking into technical work with an intended effect on society.

1.[https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-
whis...](https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-
reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/)

~~~
ausbah
People are rabidly dismissive of Project Veritas and another one of their
"exposures" because of their attempts to "make evidence" by tricking people
into admitting something, cherrypicking what "evidence" they do display, and
having a "answer first, evidence second" mindset to their operation.

If you want to show that Google has "bias against conservatives" or whatever,
get it from a reputable source instead of the garbage heap that is Project
Veritas.

~~~
bendbro
I've seen some of their videos. They seem fairly damning, and rebuttals have
always been fairly weak. For example, a google exec was captured on video
saying: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump
situation”. In what context does that statement not amount to silencing
conservative perspective on their platform? I completely agree it is their
right to do so, and probably benefits the nation, but pretending they aren't
doing it is terrible optics.

~~~
memmcgee
Oftentimes the people they say are "executives" are just rank and file
employees. I have a friend who is not an executive who got tricked into
meeting with a Project Veritas scumbag. Thankfully they realized something was
up and left the meeting.

~~~
bendbro
That's a good point. In general I'd say outing a rank-and-file employee is bad
form. There are exceptions of course, like if the employee's revealed behavior
is at par with Edward Snowden. The only example I have is the Gennai one,
which is what I'm referring to above. I'd love more examples of Project
Veritas behaving badly

~~~
bendbro
Note: not implying Gen Gennai's behavior was Snowden tier

------
arcticbull
I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each
other when they hold differing world views. That's kinda natural once you
reach a certain size and your colleagues may as well be randos on the street.

To be fair, that's a learning most businesses stumbled upon decades ago, it's
the new generation of "re-invent management" companies that are speedrunning
HR policy.

~~~
doitLP
I think they overestimated just how willing certain people are to not do their
jobs and sit around arguing while being paid.

~~~
michaelt
If timewasting was the problem, wouldn't they be clamping down on _all_
unproductive conversation, not merely the political?

I mean, wasting 10 minutes is wasting 10 minutes, whether I'm talking about
politics or football or TV.

~~~
mc32
But one is just unproductive (you being idle) the other one is
counterproductive (you upset others and divert their attention) and multiply
the counter-productivity.

~~~
hombre_fatal
Yeah, I've met people with views so different from mine that our professional
relationship was at stake.

Once it was a woman who seriously thought white men needed to be excluded from
things to make up for all the time they oppressed everyone else. It was like
socially-acceptable maliciousness.

When you talk politics, you risk having people reveal extreme views that
really accomplish nothing but put a wedge in an environment what's supposed to
be collaborative.

------
gwbas1c
Ever since the infamous "diversity memo," (which I disagree with,) I've gotten
the impression that political discussions at Google turned toxic.

A well run company includes people with diverse political views points. A
workplace that's hostile to anyone who leans right or leans left ultimately
hurts diversity.

~~~
nailer
Most of the memo was citations of studies of sex differences. People can
either agree with the studies or disagree with the research used (it's totally
cool with me if you do disagree with the research), but the idea that someone
should be punished for talking about research at a company that extols "data
driven decision making" as one of it's principles baffles me.

~~~
gwbas1c
The memo made some very poignant points, but then the author expressed some
strange opinions that I would never attempt to defend.

(Even worse, there was no reason to put some of these opinions in the memo.)

But what's more scary is Google's official response to the diversity memo.
(For context, Google instituted certain hiring policies to increase diversity,
which the "diversity memo" questioned.)

If you have the time, I suggest that you go reread the diversity memo and
Google's response. Try to read them without taking sides. (It's hard.)

~~~
manfredo
I read the memo before reading the media coverage. I was very surprised at how
controversial it was. It's claims were pretty modest: it did not claim that
women were any less capable than men at technology, and it repeatedly stated
that innate differences likely do not account for all of the disparity between
men and women in tech. All it argued was that just because a disparity exists
we should not assume that it is evidence of discrimination, and that policies
designed to engineer an outcome closer to 50/50 are likely creating
discrimination rather than reducing it.

~~~
gwbas1c
Ok, now go re-read Google's official response.

Note that they did not respond to "we should not assume that it is evidence of
discrimination, and that policies designed to engineer an outcome closer to
50/50 are likely creating discrimination"

~~~
manfredo
Right they cited "perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes". From which we can
infer that Google believes that claiming that absent any discrimination or
social pressure women would not work in tech at the same rates as men as
"perpetuating gender stereotypes".

~~~
threeseed
You are misrepresenting their point.

There are many reasons why women don't go into IT. And whilst you can look at
at it holistically it is ultimately a personal decision.

And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some
gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages women
from entering IT.

~~~
manfredo
> And so if you take that personal decision and instead make it about some
> gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically suited then it discourages
> women from entering IT.

The memo did not claim this. The references to innate differences were only in
reference to women's choices. At no point did the author claim they women
"aren't physically suited" to IT.

~~~
bduerst
He says it right here: [emphasis added]

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences _and abilities_ of
> men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these
> differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in
> tech and leadership.

He's saying that women lack the ability to work in engineering and leadership
because they are biologically different. His argument isn't limited to
preference.

And this is ignoring the fact that his supporting data used the Big5 psych
method, which has been debunked as not being scientific in identifying
biological differences due to it's lexical nature.

Edit: Damore says that women more having extraversion and empathy, which
"leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for
raises, speaking up, and leading."

Saying they are having a harder time is saying they lack the ability.

~~~
manfredo
Incorrect, you're overlooking the fact that he's referring to the distribution
of ability. Nowhere does he say that women have less ability than men. For
instance, for 2/3rds of girls reading is their best subject while for 2/3rds
of boys math is their best subject. But, girls actually outscore boys in
_both_ reading and math. In fact, I believe he cited a study that referenced
this sort of distribution in boys and girls.

The differences in the distribution suggest that girls are more likely to
prefer reading (because they're usually better at it than math) while boys are
more like to prefer math (because they're usually better at math than
reading). He's talking about how the distribution of ability affects
preference. It does _not_ say that girls are worse than boys than math - it
actually says the opposite, that girls are slightly better at both math and
reading.

~~~
bduerst
Ability != Preference

You claimed his argument was limited to preference, I am showing you that
Damore was talking about preference _and_ ability. Splitting hairs over
distribution is a red herring. Nobody here is assuming that Damore is
referring to women the individual, but women as a whole.

> Nowhere does he say that women have less ability than men.

Damore does, in several places: [emphasis added]

>Women, on average, have more:

> \- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also,
> higher agreeableness. _This leads to women generally having a harder time
> negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading._ Note that
> these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and
> women, _but this is seen solely as a women’s issue._

> \- Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute
> to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower
> number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that the data he used here is cherry picked from a 90's study that used
the Big5 method, which has since been debunked for use in biological
differentiation.

~~~
manfredo
> You claimed his argument was limited to preference, I'm merely showing that
> Damore was talking about preference and ability. Arguing distribution is a
> red herring. Nobody is assuming that Damore is referring to women the
> individual, but women as a whole.

If this was your takeaway, then I did not explain it well enough. Every
individual has a distribution of ability. Some are better at math, some are
better at sports, some are better at reading, etc. 2/3rds of boys are better
at math than they are at reading. 2/3rds of girls are better at reading than
they are at math. However, girls are actually better than boys at both reading
and math - it's just that they score better at an even bigger margin at
reading.

Is it inconceivable to think that the fact that girls are better at reading
than math 2/3rds of the time makes girls more likely to prefer reading as
compared to math (and vice versa for boys)? That's the point that Damore was
making: the distribution in ability affects boys' and girls' preferences. It
does _not_ say that the average girl has less ability than the average boy.

If you want to split hairs, you could say that making this argument is sexist
because it says girls score better than the boys on average in both reading
and in math. But I get the sense that this isn't the angle you're making.

> Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also,
> higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time
> negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that
> these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and
> women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue.

> \- Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute
> to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower
> number of women in high stress jobs.

Both of these points have to do with specific parts of the job (salary
negotiation, asking for promotion, dealing with stress). These factors exist
in _all_ jobs, not just tech. Furthermore he later offers suggestions to try
and mitigate this - he brought these things up because he wanted to offer
positive changes.

The point remains: Damore did not write that women "aren't physically suited"
(~~your words~~) to tech work.

~~~
bduerst
>The point remains: Damore did not write that women "aren't physically suited"
(your words) to tech work.

Where exactly did I say that??

> Both of these points have to do with specific parts of the job (salary
> negotiation, asking for promotion, dealing with stress) not that women are
> less suited for tech work.

Yes, yes, Damore is saying that women lack the ability to lead due to their
extraversion, empathy, and neuroticism (anxiety) inhibiting them, _because
those are specific parts of the job that require abilities_. Also, you're
ignoring now that he said both tech and leadership, and you are now focusing
on just "tech work". This is more splitting hairs on semantics to apologize
for Damore.

>And he later offers suggestions to try and mitigate this.

Of course he does. He cherry picked data to wrongly fit his hypothesis from
the start. Naturally he would conclude with his own ideas on how to mitigate a
problem that he misused data to create.

~~~
manfredo
The previous commenter wrote, "And so if you take that personal decision and
instead make it about some gender stereotype e.g. they aren't physically
suited then it discourages women from entering IT." I had mistaken this as
your comment.

But you did make similar statement s: "He's saying that women lack the ability
to work in engineering and leadership because they are biologically
different." You did claim that damore wrote that women lack ability to work in
engineering.

> Yes, yes, Damore is saying that women lack the ability to lead due to their
> extraversion, empathy, and neuroticism inhibiting them, because those are
> specific parts of the job that require abilities. This is more splitting
> hairs on semantics to apologize for Damore.

These are factors that affect all industries. Saying that this is evidence
that Damore argued that women are worse at tech than men is not valid. And
again, he brought this up in the context of suggesting improvements to try and
make tech more welcoming to women.

> Of course he does. He cherry picked data to wrongly fit his hypothesis from
> the start. Naturally he would conclude with his own ideas on how to mitigate
> a problem that he misused data to create.

Let me get this straight: somebody does their best to try and investigate why
women have a hard time in a certain field, and proposes ways to make this
better. And this is a bad thing?

Even more ironic is that Google and other companies actually _have_ used this
research to establish practices that are better for women:

> Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to
> Perf [Google's performance reviews] may be doing this to an extent, but
> maybe there’s more we can do, especially in our interviews.

So he's saying, "women are more cooperative. We should make policies that help
cooperative people thrive." He's not saying that women are worse at tech
because they're more cooperative or more neurotic. He's saying that Google
should be more welcoming to people with these traits and help them reach their
full potential.

~~~
bduerst
Your comments have devolved into into a gish gallop. You claimed that his
paper was based solely on preference, nothing else.

\- Damore said that underrepresentation of women in tech and leadership is
because of their differing preferences _and abilities_ due to biological
causation.

\- He misrepresents Big5 data to list neuroticism, extraversion, and empathy
as biological reasons why women "have a hard time" in leadership. These are
not preferences.

\- He claims that women have more anxiety, and as such Google should cater to
women's anxiety more to help them with tech leadership. That is not "women
prefer".

This isn't the memo of someone who says that women just prefer other jobs,
this is someone who misused data to try to fit his hypothesis that women's
biological differences mean they are not as capable in tech and leadership.

~~~
manfredo
> Your comments have devolved into into a gish gallop. You claimed that his
> paper was based solely on preference, nothing else.

Wrong. Now you're not just putting words in Damore's mouth, you're putting
words in mine as well.

What I wrote was, "The memo did not claim this. The references to innate
differences were only in reference to women's choices. At no point did the
author claim they women "aren't physically suited" to IT."

He offers a variety of explanation as to why women have different preferences
such as attraction to things vs. people, and the distribution (but not
aggregate difference) in ability. The point remains, though, his claims were
limited to women's preferences. He used differences in the distribution of
ability to explain _why_ this difference in preference exist, but his claim is
exclusively about women's preferences.

If if you do insist on focusing in on the mere use of the word "ability"
absent the context, Damore did not write that women are any worse than men.

> \- Damore said that underrepresentation of women in tech and leadership is
> because of their differing preferences and abilities due to biological
> causation.

No, the _distribution_ of ability affects preference. This comment explains
this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20782914](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20782914)

> \- He misrepresents Big5 data to list neuroticism, extraversion, and empathy
> as biological reasons why women "have a hard time" in leadership - i.e. lack
> some of the ability requisite for the job.

But crucially, he does not say that this make them worse at tech. Quite the
opposite, he says that Google should better recognize extroversion expressed
as cooperation in performance reviews. This only hampers them insofar as
Google is not creating a good environment, and he's asking google to change
that environment.

> \- He claims that women have more anxiety, and as such Google should cater
> to women's anxiety more to help them with tech leadership.

Aagain this is not saying that women are worse at tech. Anxiety _can_ be
detrimental if the company does not accommodate it, but it is not a barrier to
success if tech if the company does. And he is asking Google to be
accommodating.

> This isn't the memo of someone who says that women just prefer other jobs,
> this is someone who misused data to try to fit his hypothesis that women's
> biological differences mean they are not as capable in tech and leadership.

False. At no point did Damore write that "women's biological differences mean
they are not as capable in tech", and it only hampers them in leadership
insofar as Google does not appropriately recognize the way women display
extroversion (and he subsequently offers suggestions to address this). You're
trying to portray calls for Google to make its environment more friendly to
women as saying that women are biologically worse at tech. This is absurd. It
also makes people adverse to offering any suggestions to improve the
experience of women in tech. Have an idea that you think will make things
better for women in tech? Well, you better keep it to yourself otherwise
you'll be branded a sexist.

The incorrect statements you are making about the memo are characteristic of
someone that read the misleading (and at times outright false) media coverage
of the memo. People who read the memo without being primed to see it as sexist
do not make these errors. Make no mistake. Damore was not fired for the words
he actually wrote. Remember his memo was circulated for about a month without
causing a storm. It was only after the media's misrepresentation coverage that
he was fired.

------
lame88
I'm surprised at the lack of skepticism in the discussion here. The term
"politics" \- even assuming there is a problem with fiery discussions of what
we traditionally view that term to cover - could easily cover dissent over
programs like Dragonfly. Most controversy within Google that is publicly known
is politically motivated. Don't take this term at face value.

~~~
ThetaOneOne
Yeah politics is an extremely broad topic. What’s common sense to one person
is a insane governmental overreach to another. While I don’t think politics
should hold a large place in the work place I’m always mindful when speech is
restricted in pursuit of restricting “toxicity.”

------
taurath
Why shouldn’t employees of the company with the goal of organizing all the
worlds information debate politics? Everything is political. Especially
information.

~~~
BurningFrog
Because they have work to do. That's why they're there.

~~~
refurb
Exactly.

If I'm working on a team that is rolling out a new Google drive feature, I
really don't need to hear you talk about why drinking straws are a phallic
symbol and used by the patriarchy to keep woman down.

We have work to do.

~~~
arcticbull
I'm sure the oppressed party in your example feels the polar opposite and
don't want to hear your whining about how feminism doesn't matter in modern
society because it's good enough as is. And I think that's the point :)

~~~
cameronbrown
I assume you're being sarcastic/exaggerating, but even so.

This is just a perfect example of how polarised politics is today. Society
just needs to calm down and evaluate itself instead of bickering over
nonsense.

~~~
TheGRS
Yes, every meaningful change in society has come to light because everyone
calmed down enough.

~~~
cameronbrown
How is meaningful change in society related to shipping Google Drive features?

Time and a place.

Politics has no nuance or filter anymore. It's all the time on full blast,
forever. I hate it.

~~~
Nullabillity
Plenty of Google Drive features are political. For example, allowing people to
monitor who has read a document. Or deciding what the default permission set
should be for new files. Or whether or not the files should be encrypted at
rest. Or whether the Drive client should download and sync everything, or
download stuff on demand. Etc, etc.

~~~
cameronbrown
That's a strawman argument. I think we both know there's a distinction to be
made between 'political' and mainstream political conversation. Of course if
you're stretching the definition it will include everything.

------
dmix
A small group of people always ruin these things for everyone else.

ie, the people who can't handle politics and think the worlds constantly on
fire so they think they're justified in ignoring social grace and time/place
taboos. The internet news machines have generated many thousands of these
people.

I feel like they are becoming more popular and giving even less of a shit that
other people don't want to be forced to listen to their politics at work or in
other forced proximity environments. And then there's the people who judge you
for not talking or 'resisting', as if not being politically engaged is
equivalent to supporting the 'other side'. Then there's the overly-excited
drunken political rants at parties, that's when they really let loose! /rant

~~~
rollinDyno
I hear you, but have you considered that the world's actually on fire? Perhaps
you wouldn't notice because you don't live in the Amazon.

I don't mean that seriously, but it does serve a point. How can you tell if
people are just ranting "because of the internet" and not because they are
suffering and think your political inaction is contributing to their pains?

Because of your comment I will try to be more cautious about people
complaining as they might just be attention grabbers but it's also dangerous
to fully ignore them because it makes us uncomfortable.

We should be grateful people rant to one another, because it means we still
believe we can help ourselves. If this was a dictatorship we were living in
there would be no point in complaining to the neighbours.

~~~
simonsarris
You're proving his point. The Amazon is experiencing a more or less average
amount of fire during its dry season as farmers clear/maintain cropland like
they do every year. However, the internet media has turned this into
sensationalism that captures people like you and turns them into doomsayers.

From nasa.gov:

> As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that
> total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the
> average in comparison to the past 15 years.

[https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-
bra...](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil)

Things are not as bad as you think they are, or as bad as crappy internet news
sites want you to think they are.

~~~
munk-a
Who is to say that the status quo isn't alarming, "things aren't worse than
last year" isn't a valid argument that things are fine in any logical setting.

And the internet has helped spread information, some of these issues may have
been captured by Nat Geo in the 40s but others will have been missed. A status
quo progression may be championed as an issue not because everyone previously
accepted it but because no one was previously aware of it.

~~~
deadmetheny
Per the linked article:

"As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that
total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the
average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil,
Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) Though activity appears to be
above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared
below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates"

A status quo isn't inherently bad, and this one looks like it's been
consistent for many years.

~~~
munk-a
I wanted to clarify that my statement above isn't specific to this article. I
was trying to make a general reply, with consideration to the rest of the
thread, to that original point and general statement.

I'm not in a position to evaluate how dire this specific instance is with any
sort of confidence in my findings.

------
stevenalowe
How about we do our jobs instead? Yes please!

~~~
kranner
How about judging us on our performance at our jobs then, and not treating us
as children?

~~~
scarface74
In most professional settings, it’s considered a norm not to talk about sex,
politics, and religion unless your business is dealing with one of those areas
specifically.

~~~
kranner
But do most professional settings go to this extent to police their employees:

> creating a team of moderators to monitor conversations on company chat
> boards

~~~
jonas21
Most professional settings would not have permitted these company chat boards
in the first place.

~~~
adambyrtek
Are you really trying to argue that companies which for example use Slack (or
a similar service) are "not professional"?

~~~
jonas21
No, I'm arguing that most large, "professional" companies would not have
allowed employees to create create chat groups whose sole purpose was to
discuss politics or any other non-work-related topic (whether on mailing
lists, Slack, or whatever). In doing so, Google was treating its employees
more like adults, which is the opposite of what a previous comment in the
thread was suggesting.

~~~
scarface74
How did Google “treating employees like adults” work out? The only reason an
employer goes to work is to make money. The only reason an employer hires
someone is to make them money or to save them money.

Bringing anything else into the workplace is an unnecessary distraction from
both the employee’s and employer’s standpoint. I go to work to have money
deposited into my account twice a month and go home to spend time with my
family and friends. The more time I spend at work spending energy not doing
work either I will be less effective or spend more time away from
family/friends/hobbies to be effective at work.

------
SirensOfTitan
I try to just do work at work, but to play contrarian:

If one agrees with Aristotle in that: "Man is by nature a political animal,"
the cultural acceptance of no politics at work seems almost nefarious. Most of
us spend more time at work than perhaps any other activity, barring sleep.

One could perhaps even hypothesize that without some political discussion at
work, people exclusively talk with friends who share their political opinions,
causing larger lateralization of political thought.

~~~
TheGRS
There is also a shared understanding that you don't debate politics with
family, which would also be a pretty big block of time for many. Perhaps the
forum isn't the problem, its that a good deal of people feel uncomfortable
with politics and choose to not engage. I guess what's pretty funny here is we
all have a shared understanding that there are problems in politics and the
cultural landscape, but also there's a lot of common sense that keeping your
feelings bottled up isn't good for anyone.

------
rubberstock
Since this is google, it is getting interesting:

>organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs
which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law)

~~~
carapace
The internal codebase at Google is organized like a bazaar.

------
madrox
Where I grew up, the saying went "there are three things you don't talk about
in polite company: money, religion, and politics." Where I used to work, I
found out someone I worked with a lot didn't support gay marriage. I had a
really hard time working with them after that.

Maybe this is the inevitable outcome of trying to make work a social hub. It's
great to say that we _should_ be able to discuss anything with anyone, but the
reality is that we're not all perfectly mature people and we can't handle it.

------
djtriptych
Worked at Google for a short time (2013-2014), during the height of Trayvon
Martin and other murders of black folks around then. The internal discussion
could really be hard to read for me (I'm black). Still, I don't think it
should really be stopped. I was glad to be able to express my actual opinions
at work.

I think they'll have a really hard time totally stopping it though. Internally
it's really like a college atmosphere, at least in terms of exchanging ideas
via their intranet. I was amazed that it was so open in that way, and I hope
they find a way to keep that culture alive.

On the other hand, it was hard to work with people that help views that I
considered racist or nearly so. No easy solution here.

~~~
numakerg
>The internal discussion could really be hard to read for me (I'm black)

Was it a minority of people who had views that were hard to read or the
majority? I was under the impression that most people at Google were not
supportive of his acquittal.

~~~
djtriptych
Loud minority - including a lot of non-US workers as I recall.

------
nullc
I wonder if this has anything to do with the recently leaked posts that shows
google staff used the google search front end to target specific demographics
they expected to vote for a particular candidate and then were shocked and
upset when a substantial minority portion of those populations voted for
different candidates?

If discussions are leading to credible allegations that a company was
promoting candidates using their marketing resources in violation of campaign
finance laws, it would be easy to understand why they might want to get those
discussions offline.

~~~
joshuamorton
Could you link to the evidence of that, because I think you'll find that upon
even a cursory investigation, it doesn't exist.

~~~
nullc
I could, but the google leaked documents have been aggressively removed from
any site I've seen them posted on (HN, reddit, etc.) presumably under (BS)
legal threat from google. If you give me an email address, I'll send you links
privately.

~~~
joshuamorton
I'm <user>@google.com, among others.

I presume your talking about one of the two leaks via veritas. Those don't say
what you claim they do. I also expect your assumptions about legal threats are
wrong. But such claims are easy to make sans evidence, and they do feel good.

------
dev_dull
I expect them to loosely categorize politics, while still encouraging open
corporate discussion of LGBTQ, racial, and other such issues. People may have
different opinions about that.

~~~
big_chungus
"I expect them to block most things, but still allow things I care about but
which the "other side" doesn't regard as serious issues."

Fixed that for you. No one is the sole arbiter of what is "important", so I've
usually found just not discussing to be the best solution at work.

~~~
TheGRS
Telling people to stop talking about politics because one don't feel like the
discussion is important or productive can be viewed as its own form of covert
political discourse. "The status quo is fine, I'm doing fine, discussion to
the contrary hurts my worldview".

~~~
big_chungus
Exactly. Every one regards his issues as too important to be merely political.
My point is many people don't agree with your interpretation of what ought to
be allowed/banned, and you've presented no reason why those issues in
particular ought to be discussed. Again, my best solution is to just avoid
talking politics at work.

~~~
TheGRS
Discrimination in the workplace and society is a perfectly valid reason for
talking about politics at work.

------
sergiotapia
Monkey has shit the bed already though hasn't it.

I never had the need to discuss politics at work. Just don't do it, why open
that can of worms. Absolutely no need to do so. One time a coworker asked me
and I said "I don't discuss politics at work". Be professional, people.

~~~
anoncake
Of course there is a need to discuss politics. It isn't a separate thing that
can be divorced from what it's about, i.e. everything. That includes work.

~~~
f00zz
I don't understand this view that "everything is political". How can can a
discussion on e.g. C++20 coroutines be political?

~~~
rollinDyno
C++20 coroutines are tools to serve a purpose. That purpose is political.

~~~
f00zz
Sometimes that purpose is just to tell if two binary trees have the same
fringe

~~~
anoncake
That's an odd line of business.

------
baby
I'm not at Google but my guess is that the number of Chinese employees and the
current protests in HongKong might create some internal political fights.

~~~
nostrademons
I haven't been at Google in 5 years but I worked with a lot of Chinese
coworkers from all three of mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong when I was
there (as well as ABCs of those descents). Honestly, I never saw a Chinese
employee get into a political argument. Mostly they were just happy to be in
the U.S. and draw a Google-level salary. ABCs (including myself) would, but
usually about American politics, not Chinese.

I think most Americans underestimate the extent to which most Chinese are
apolitical and pragmatic. Chinese culture doesn't have the tradition of civic
engagement and vigorous debate that Anglo-American culture does, and skews
more towards Exit than Voice. A typical Chinese response to a looming civil
war is more akin to "Well shit. Better emigrate (if I can) or pay off the
right soldiers and officials (if I can't) so this doesn't harm my family" than
to demonstrate in the streets and call for the ouster of the leaders in
question. This is a double-edged sword: it's how the CCP maintains social
controls that would be unacceptable violations of civil liberties in Western
democracies, it's also behind the "model minority" image of Asian-Americans,
but it also means that you don't get a lot of disruptive political talk in
groups with Asian immigrants.

~~~
SignalsFromBob
ABCs? I don't understand. What does that mean?

~~~
samyem
American Born Chinese

------
Analemma_
I think this was inevitable in the long run. From the very beginning, Google
has tried to have the atmosphere of a college campus rather than a normal
workplace, probably (at least in the early days before every tech company
started doing this) to help them stand out among job applicants as an
alternative to stuffier companies.

The thing is though, professional work environments (where there are typically
norms around never discussing politics) are the way they are for a reason.
Just like Bitcoiners are rediscovering why finance regulations exist, Google
is rediscovering why the cool, relaxed workplace ends up causing more problems
than it solves.

------
mullingitover
Don't debate politics, but please contribute to our corporate PAC that
supports some of the worst politicians.

~~~
theplague42
Which politicians?

~~~
sp332
@Pinboard (yes the pinboard.com guy) has been keeping track of political
donations from big tech companies.
[https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1141838179936243714](https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1141838179936243714)

~~~
azffz
What are the chances he has only been tracking donations made to right-wing
groups? :')

Edit: very high, it seems
[https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apinboard%20PAC](https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apinboard%20PAC)

~~~
ceejayoz
@Pinboard's politics are... not secret.

~~~
wtveb
The politics of $RICH_GUY_WHO_WORKS_AT_TECH_IN_THE_WEST_COAST are not secret,
I was just laughing at the prospect of a seemingly neutral "project" which is
just a way of denouncing companies that use their advertisement power to show
how leftist they are (because in this day and age they have no other choice)
while, at the same time, they give money to those eeeevil conservatives.

~~~
ceejayoz
At what point has anyone said it was neutral?

~~~
ntnxw
"Pinboard has been keeping track of political donations from big tech
companies" does not seem to imply that it's a completely biased report, but
yeah, I should have known better :P

------
mancerayder
What a busy topic!

My first reaction (to the general topic) was, "Well, of course they had to put
a stop to that. And international message forums with many participants? What
a recipe for disaster."

But then I had to be honest with myself: I'm at work at _least_ 45 hours a
week (not at Google, but in tech). My commute time is 45 minutes each way. So
out of 11-12 hours of not-me-time, you want me to completely keep my trap
shut? That's a hard ask.

Here's an example. Earlier this week, I'm on my way to the subway and I see a
fight, and I also see piss on two sets of seats on both sides of the subway
car. Then I'm at work and my colleague, unprompted and as I come in, remarks
how many more heroin-addled people there are in Midtown, Manhattan than he's
ever seen. I then blurt out a rant about the Mayor, criminal justice policies
I consider wrong (such as the push to lower incarceration without
consequence), and a few other things that were aggressively opinionated and
political, in an open office environment. Shortly thereafter I somewhat
regretted it (but I never expected any consequences).

We're only human.

It just needs to be channeled. Keep it to your local work friends, or at the
bar, or whatever that ISN'T on a message board.

------
banachtarski
To be honest though, I've never been a fan of discussing politics at the
workplace.

------
ineedasername
Avoiding topics that are not work related and are likely to make a large group
of co-workers angry seems like an obvious, professional thing to do,
regardless of the specific policies of the workplace.

------
JustSomeNobody
Talk about work at work. If you meet someone at work who you think you want to
be friends with, invite them for coffee before work and talk about non-work
stuff then. But at work, just talk about work.

~~~
sgspace
Perhaps it’s googles culture of making work feel like a second home that makes
googlers feel entitled to share their political opinions at work.

------
quotemstr
What's remarkable is how the media narrative surrounding this rule change
seems to suggest that it's a bad thing, while the popular response is
overwhelmingly positive. I've yet to see one of these articles quote someone
who isn't an internal activist or present the perspective of any employee who
likes the change.

------
simplecomplex
Great. Professional adults don’t talk about heated issues at work when it is
not necessary. For obvious reasons.

------
papito
It's a basic "work for hire" contract between two parties. No other employer
will tolerate this. If you don't like it - quit and write a blog post.

~~~
skybrian
Well, no, many jobs are much more complicated than that. Honestly, a
contractor relationship where you are taking orders from one person and only
have to worry about what they think is refreshingly simple compared to working
in a highly collaborative environment.

For example, at Google, your manager is one person whose opinions are
important, but things like promotions also depend heavily on peer review and
your general reputation.

~~~
papito
That sort of "plumbing" exists in lots, if not most places. Google is not
different in that sense, except for the size.

~~~
skybrian
I agree that some things are similar, but I think the differences between jobs
matter, even if they aren't unique to one company.

------
WheelsAtLarge
There is a reason you keep away from discussing politics and religion in
certain places. We all get excited when discussing them and nothing gets
solved. Work is the wrong place for it. Google should have known this by now.
It's about time they start doing something about it.

------
einhverfr
By the way, I don't have a problem drawing the line at disruptive political
debates. However, I don't trust companies to evenly apply such rules.

------
daenz
It's almost as if embracing "the personal is political" makes people feel
morally obligated and virtuous for airing every half baked and divisive
political opinion. And now they want to put the genie back in the bottle? Far
too late.

------
starpilot
This is the norm at most companies right? Like Microsoft etc.? Whether de
factor or de iuro, politics is usually left at home unless it's personal
conversations among close colleagues.

------
didip
I bet majority of Google employees are taking a deep sigh of relief now.

It must be suffocating being surrounded with political talks at work when one
is trying to do their job well.

~~~
skybrian
I left a few years ago, but it was more like internal politics was a
fascinating addiction that some people are better than others at ignoring.

Sort of like reading Hacker News.

I wonder if memegen is shut down yet?

~~~
panda88888
Memegen is alive. Leadership team still need it for their all hands slides. XD

------
segmondy
Google shouldn't even have to say this to a bunch of grown ups. You don't talk
about Politics, Religion, Sex, Health and Wealth with strangers.

------
Mistrustbuster
Ownership of a multinational conglomarate corporation whose practices effect
the lives of billions requires either governance or real stewardship. Google
is driven by one thing making profit. There stewardship is morally defunct.
their profits are driven by the sale of the never ending stream of consumer
information they glean from the electronic fields where they harvest. That
info is all encompassing some you or I would consider private some nonsense.
others might percieve that very same data differantly. All of it can be used
to map and monitise people, placea, ideas and things. All of it used to know
you. To not deamand or hold google accountable for their caveat emptor and
lasie fair monopoly is foolish. to allow them or their users a free hand is
naive. Ideas are more powerful then weapons. Greed a larger motivator then
morals. Google launched in the U.S. has taken those profits and used them to
court profits in countrys where their motivations are not the U.S.s
motivations but googles remains the same. Harvest information and sale it.
Dont ask what the info is used for.

------
coldtea
Of course Google doesn't want staff debating politics at work.

It can lead to this:

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/27/18114285/google-
employee...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/27/18114285/google-employee-
china-censorship-protest-project-dragonfly-search-engine-letter)

or this:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-
pentagon/...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-
pentagon/google-drops-out-of-bidding-for-10-billion-pentagon-data-deal-
idUSKCN1MI2BZ)

How is a company expected to make a buck if they have to suffer ethical
considerations? The salaried workthings should just do what they're told...

------
flippinburgers
If I had to guess, the individuals demanding that google employees be allowed
to debate political subjects because "everything is political" are the same
people who would argue that consumers of google's services shouldn't expect
that google won't censor them. An odd position to take if you ask me.

------
ixtli
Meanwhile, google shuts down more than 200 youtube channels that criticize the
hong kong protests. (N.B.: I do not oppose them, im just pointing out how
hilariously hypocritical it is for an organization at the center of global
politics to be telling its employees not to debate politics.)

------
memmcgee
Genuinely don't know if HN is as reactionary as this comment sections makes it
seem or if we're just getting astroturfed by the usual suspects.

I can't be the only one who sees this as a significant crackdown on employee
freedoms and an attempt to silence dissent.

------
dekhn
I feel like Google should have started their orientation with a link to jwz's
rba gruntle (not linking because HN people hate what his referral headers
redirect does). The lawyer in that article is now an SVP of Legal at Google.

~~~
ProAm
> what his referral headers redirect does

What's it do, first time Ive heard of that

~~~
mieseratte
Display some kind of sketchy image (I think it was a hairy ballsack?) and a
mild rant hating on the HN crowd.

------
ashwinaj
Finally common sense prevails! Get to work on time, eat your free lunch, work,
go home.

To those of you who disagree; if you want to "make a difference" take a cue
from Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther king Jr. etc. Mahama Gandhi didn't work
for the East India company while simultaneously fighting for freedom.

If you are serious about it put your money where your mouth is and stop being
empty vessels.

~~~
carapace
> Mahama Gandhi didn't work for the East India company while simultaneously
> fighting for freedom.

LOL!

I worked at Google for about two years as a "TVC" (a programmer in a cubical,
not a "real" Googler) and it was like being kidnapped by aliens, after I left
that's how it felt: Like I was one of those people who had just been returned
to Earth.

One thing that doesn't get talked about in re: Google and values: there's an
entire "underclass" of employees that are of definite inferior status. The
janitors, re-stockers of cafes, and maintenance people, etc. They wear special
uniforms, and are trained not to fraternize with the "real" Googlers. They
don't get to ride the fancy buses to and from work.

They are also of a different racial mix. Googlers are generally white or Asian
but the staff are generally Hispanic. So there's politics, and then there's
politics...

~~~
nesyt
This is true of most (perhaps all) big tech (perhaps all) companies.

~~~
ericd
Maybe, but if you loudly espouse progressive values as Googlers seem to do
more than most tech workers, maybe you should put some of those values into
practice, and actually make a real effort to integrate those contractors into
the group?

------
sequoia
> Some employees have used internal chat boards to rally other workers against
> some Google projects, helping push the company to end work on a censored
> search engine for the Chinese market and an artificial intelligence contract
> for the U.S. military.

Oh. So they don't care about bullying or alienating people with unpopular
political views, they're upset that employees are questioning their material
support of antidemocratic governments. For a second I thought they were
actually making something close to a good ethical choice here, I see I was
mistaken.

------
dudus
They are right. It's ridicule that it has to come to this. Debate politics in
your personal time. There's already too much shit keeping people from their
workstations (massages, free food, ...)

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
Big tech and hiring practices and internet privacy and google itself are
political topics this election cycle. Should googlers not talk debate about
tech and hiring and privacy and google?

------
paulhodge
One of the their core values is "don't be evil", isn't that statement
inherently political? I think a lot of people chose to work at Google (instead
of say Oracle or etc) because of those ideals. Kinda disingenuous to advertise
that reputation and then switch to a policy of "actually shut up and do the
work".

~~~
idlewords
That "core value" was removed some time ago.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/xtfde](http://archive.is/xtfde)

------
intopieces
I don't work at Google. But, I wouldn't even discuss politics with people that
I know agree with me. It's just not professional. I am a little surprised it's
taken this long for this to come to a head -- the HR department must be
breathing a sigh of relief.

------
kerng
Google itself is pretty political, just look at their Doodles. So, this will
be interesting to watch.

------
Tehchops
I think, inevitably, the saying about work not being a good forum for
discussing:

\- religion

\- politics

\- sex

still holds true, regardless of how progressive the workplace.

------
halis
I agree with Google. Don't discuss politics or religion at work. It's not a
good look.

------
cryptozeus
Am I the only one who thinks it’s totally okay for a Company to allow or not
allow certain kinds of discussions within their offices. Why is this even a
debate ? Companies are not run like democracies !! You dont loke the rule,
change the company.

------
zarkov99
No shit. I guess Google can no longer assume that there is a single correct
world view that all good and smart people hold. Who knew.

~~~
wutbrodo
This is so hilariously wrong that I don't even know where to start.

Google's culture was predicated on hiring intelligent, emotionally-continent
adults. Free discussion of politics wasn't banned during my time there because
everyone was capable of understanding precisely the opposite of what you're
describing: that differing views on the world exist and are attributable to
more than just whether someone is a good or bad person.

When you scale to a hundred thousand employees, you can't keep your bar that
high, and you have to start letting in people who more closely resemble the
average narrow-minded, maximalizing dumbass. For a little while that meant the
company needed to bow to the more culturally-powerful regressive left (esp
when things leaked, for PR reasons), but as the culture war heats up, the only
winning move for a company with a (classical) liberal founding culture is to
discourage political engagement at all.

~~~
the-pigeon
I've worked for a lot of small startups some mid-sized companies in California
over the last decade.

I would never ever share any views that are non-liberal because when I've seen
anyone else do it it didn't go well for them at all. And I'm not at work to
change people's political views so there's no reason to take the risk.

I don't think this is a new shift at all. I think it's typical when you have
smart but insecure people which is most software engineers.

~~~
cheald
"Over the last decade" is a critical qualification, I think. This phenomenon
emerged in the early 2010s, by my best reckoning.

This sounds an awful lot like nostalgic pining for the good old days, but
there _was_ a time not too long ago that daring to hold an opinion that others
around you disagreed with wasn't an existential threat to your career. Things
shifted really hard, really fast.

------
discordance
Seems like one of those Google internal threads has spilled external onto HN

------
notadoc
What's wrong with that? Work is for working, is it not?

------
t0astbread
Judging from the comments there are basically two stereotypes of people in
this discussion:

1) The people who "just want to do their work". While they might care about
the ramifications of what they're doing they don't think about it actively
while working on it

2) The people who care A LOT about their ethics and try to respect them in
whatever they do

I guess both sides are important and the way Google phrased these new rules
doesn't seem to exclude either side but "banning politics at work" surely
isn't good for type #2 and, by extension, the company at large.

~~~
refurb
You're mischaracterizing the first group.

If it's _relevant to the work you 're doing_, then politics is fine. If's not,
_keep it to yourself_.

~~~
t0astbread
I would've categorized those people as type #2. People who constantly talk
about totally irrelevant topics (no matter if political or not) I would've
just regarded as "chatty".

------
Causality1
Ok, so are senior executives going to follow that rule?

One recalls the transcript from the all-hands meeting after the 2016 election
where Sergey Brin said “Most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad, “I
find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of you do too. It’s a
stressful time, and it conflicts with many of our values. I think it’s a good
time to reflect on that. ... So many people apparently don’t share the values
that we have.” and in doing so put a target on the back of every centrist and
conservative at Google.

------
SolaceQuantum
So, how does protesting google's self-censorship to get into China count as
political, and should it be banned?

------
yters
So once China starts to violently crack down on Hong Kong protesters, is
Google going to hide it all?

------
hendersoon
I don't blame them. Even aside from the President and GOP media machine
attacking them for anti-conservative bias, Why would you want people to talk
politics at work in the first place? At work you should be working. Argue
about politics on your own time.

(He said, posting from work.)

And the difference is my employer doesn't host Hacker News. I'm posting on my
own recognizance.

------
buboard
> disrupting the workday to have a raging debate over politics or the latest
> news story does not,

Why do googlers engage in this at work? They don't feel their political
conversations deserve a wider audience? Or do they feel the wider audience
does not deserve their political conversations ?

------
lonelappde
Headline is a lie that the article body quickly contradicts.

------
RickJWagner
Yes! It's about time work and politics were made separate.

Political discussion quickly turn toxic. Nobody is convinced of anything, and
career harm is a definite possibility.

This is a great, common-sense move. Kudos to Google.

------
jdlyga
I couldn't imagine debating politics at work.

------
tehjoker
It was ok until it started impacting the business... Like when the workers
prevented the sale of AI technology to the people droning wedding parties in
the Middle East. Yawn.

------
twblalock
Good. Work should not be a debating society.

------
webwielder2
It's funny how we pigeonhole "things that actually matter" as "politics" and
that those things are somehow taboo. I mean, what's MORE worth talking about
than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?

~~~
maxaf
Not every place where groups of people participate in shared activities must
become a forum for political battles.

~~~
rollinDyno
To these people it must. They are aware they're disrupting the workplace but
they do it because they have a sense of urgency and responsibility. They are
willing to break ties with their fellow coworkers because they carry a larger
social mission.

~~~
munk-a
That's an interesting point - especially when it comes to the urgency a lot of
people feel when considering climate change.

I feel like part of the partisan leak into the workplace might be due to the
lack of responsible governance that most Americans are feeling right now -
since the entities responsible for fixing the big problems are out to lunch
everyone is feeling a need to try and help solve those problems themselves.

~~~
maxaf
Most of this political fervor is simple grandstanding. If these people really,
truly cared about the issues they advocate, they'd have abandoned their cushy
jobs at Google and gone on to make a real difference.

I fully agree that the American consumerist lifestyle has run its course, and
has done tremendous damage to the planet. However, those who yell the most
loudly about it should also be the ones to quit it first. Go live on a self-
sustaining farm in Montana and show the rest of us how it's done. Until then,
stop disrupting the office: people are trying to work in order to make ends
meet.

~~~
munk-a
> should also be the ones to quit it first.

I disagree, that's of the same vein of reductive arguments that try to shame
rich people who want higher taxes into paying higher taxes voluntarily - for
these big problems we actually need to act together or there will always be a
more efficient way to pursue wealth by over-exploiting the resources other
people are leaving on the table to preserve.

~~~
maxaf
There's a huge difference between taxes (an aspect of societal behavior
encoded in law) and personal lifestyle choices. We (supposedly, allegedly)
exist in a political system that allows for some participation by citizens.
One could choose to run for office, or campaign on behalf of a political
candidate who might pursue progressive policies when elected. Over time this
adds up to real change. I can see the point that perhaps slowly nudging a
large political system towards real change is too little, too late for some
issues. If this is indeed the case, then change must happen outside the bounds
of normal political action. Take the tax issue you brought up: there is no law
that would levy a tax on wealth. This law doesn't exist. If it existed, and if
it were written without loopholes, it would achieve the goal of redistributing
all this wealth. Unfortunately, this law isn't a reality, so until that
changes we're stuck with other ways of making the rich pay. We can shame them,
refuse to do business with them, and so on; but simply bitching about this at
work won't move the needle even a little bit.

Personal lifestyle choices, on the other hand, are called that for a good
reason: each person can make that choice for themselves. There's a liberal
echo chamber in which the choice of one person, along with the right amount of
advocacy and education, can be greatly amplified leading to a critical mass of
people making a similar choice. Imagine an emergent group that is just like
hipsters, but focused on environmentalism and sustainable living instead of
rushing to tightly pack themselves into increasingly sparse and really
expensive apartments in Brooklyn. Imagine communes springing up in
agriculturally productive regions, helped along by technology and innovative
thinking, operating fully on renewable energy, and doing brisk business
selling food. Make this model repeatable by someone without extensive
education, and you have yourself real change.

Google employs plenty of people who have the right ideology, drive, and
technical skills to make this happen. Instead all they do is work for a giant
advertising and surveillance firm.

------
santo_bob
This isn't new. In 2011, a bunch of right-wingers (people we'd recognize as
fascists) got one of the smartest people in tech burned out of Google in 6
months. They did whatever they could for years to ruin his career and may
still being doing it. Executives stood by and let it happen.

This is not a new tension.

------
habnds
most comments I've ever seen on a HN post I think

------
huffmsa
No debate, just get in line.

~~~
ixtli
A good employee is a _quiet_ employee.

~~~
paulddraper
Agreed. Goes for coworkers too.

------
SkyBelow
>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect
each other when they hold differing world views.

I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views
involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly
thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I
would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much less
respect, the second is itself a form of disrespect.

Now, that is a pretty extreme view for today's society but good for making an
example with. It is also not too far off from many views that I have
personally seen, especially when you begin to imagine the legal changes
involved to implement those views.

~~~
tdb7893
I've seen people at work defend trans hate as a "conservative value". It's
fine if people have different opinions on taxes but to reject people's
identity like that, especially one held by some of their colleagues, should
cross a line and they shouldn't be able to hide behind "conservative values".

~~~
azffz
That's the point, you should be able to hold that opinion, but you should not
publicly state it openly at work in the first place.

~~~
october_sky
Taking the other side, how do you counter the "So some opinions are okay to
state publicly, while others are not?" I think this is the rub... For any
given X, you'll find groups of people that are pro-X, and someone anti-X.

~~~
tdb7893
Some things shouldn't be okay to say. That intolerance actually hurts people,
if someone says "the Nazis were right" that really doesn't end up being a
victimless crime, America is an example right now where the rhetoric is
leading to actual violence towards certain groups. While I think the
government regulating it too much is not good I don't see the issue of doing
it collectively as individuals.

Edit: just as a final thought, I've been on both sides of this, I've been
silenced and I've silenced other people and honestly they both suck. I hold
this view with the believe that some middle ground of things not being okay is
the only one that works. If someone thinks that a free for all of ideas works
well they are welcome to try it on their social media and at their company and
I could be convinced if I could see it work at scale. It's really a practical
view more than a philosophical one

------
munk-a
From the other side - if the world is on fire but a portion of the population
thinks everything is just fine and dandy... is it appropriate for everyone to
be politely quite until that portion comes to their own realization that the
world is on fire? What if that never happens?

I feel like the gun control debate is particularly relevant - whenever a
shooting happens one side calmly says "This is unfortunate but unavoidable
given the cost to freedom we'd need to pay to remove firearms - please stop
trying to use a tragedy politically" while the other side says "How many times
does this need to happen before you realize 12,000 Americans died from this
last year and I don't want my kid to be one of them."

Here's an issue where I think half the side thinks the world is on fire and
the other is content - without getting into the merits of either side I do
think it's unreasonable for the anti-gun control side to continue to argue
against having a discussion for the sake of decorum. This is a divide we need
to resolve.

~~~
ksdale
I agree that it's unreasonable to argue against having a discussion for the
sake of decorum. If the discussion needs to happen, it needs to happen, but I
think you're ignoring the fact that many anti-gun control advocates think the
current state of affairs is fine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think a
conversation is important to have because you believe that such a conversation
would reshape the world in a way that is more closely aligned with your
preferred policies. Anti-gun control advocates don't want that.

This is exactly why a lot of people don't discuss politics at work. You first
sentence also kind of assumes that the side that believes the world is on fire
is correct. It would probably be beneficial to allow the discussion of
politics at work if the side that believed the world was on fire was indeed
always correct, but sometimes they aren't, and what then?

I personally would prefer, for example, if someone didn't try to convince me
to do something to save my immortal soul, regardless of how ardently they
believe that my immortal soul needs saving.

~~~
munk-a
> You first sentence also kind of assumes that the side that believes the
> world is on fire is correct. It would probably be beneficial to allow the
> discussion of politics at work if the side that believed the world was on
> fire was indeed always correct, but sometimes they aren't, and what then?

I was trying to avoid wording the above with any bias one way or the other -
presenting both sides in their self-promoted light... The problem is that I
think it's unclear when the world is on-fire or not and when you feel that a
discussion isn't world ending it might just be that your thoughts are trapped
in a bubble and you're having difficulty empathizing with the reason why the
other side thinks the world is on fire. Certainly the world isn't on fire in
every conceivable way, but evaluating whether a problem warrants a discussion
or not is already a potentially opinionated decision.

~~~
ksdale
Yeah, I appreciate the lengths you went to to avoid bias! This is spot on.

------
moresocialism
The problem is that what constitutes politics? Guns shouldn't be political,
who you have sex with shouldn't be political...but in our current climate,
they are both considered political.

..and no debating? Most people at Google are shades of left. It sounds like
they are just trying to drown out dissenting views once again.

~~~
scarface74
Why do you feel the need to talk about sex at work or guns?

~~~
lostgame
This actually made me laugh - I couldn't agree more. Since when is sexuality
an open topic at work?

~~~
leetcrew
I'm guessing you've never worked in a restaurant...

~~~
scarface74
I hope you wouldn’t compare the level of professionalism expected at a
restaurant to what you should expect in an office setting.

~~~
leetcrew
of course not. I'm just making the point that a lot of folks might go their
entire lives without working in such a stuffy environment as the modern
office. and yet, life goes on.

------
wtdata
I am under the impression it was never a debate to start with. A debate
implies that both sides are allowed to speak their arguments, yet, Google was
actively shutting down and firing people that defended one of the sides.

------
stretchwithme
So, wait. The focus will being on getting work done?

That'll never work.

------
kwillets
And there I was hoping they would solve all the world's problems from their
campus in Mountain View.

------
freewilly1040
Paywall, but I'd bet this is mostly about forums/Slack/email and not about in
person conversations.

I think the problem is that mass communication tools being used at biggish
companies and up do not foster productive conversations about controversial
topics. Trolling scales too well.

------
Zelphyr
The Freemasons figured this out over a century ago to good effect.

~~~
Zelphyr
I’m not sure why this is getting downvoted. As a Freemason myself I find the
ban on discussion of politics and religion while in lodge refreshing. It’s an
important facet of the craft that helps us view each other as equals.

------
somesortofsystm
I really have to wonder: do Google engineers google for things when they can't
work out a solution to their problem?

Because honestly, all you need to do, in order to form a perfect political
opinion, is google for it. No further effort required.

------
shitgoose
it is amazing how one simple thought escapes google execs - country is split
in two halfs. google has strongly affiliated itself with one of the halfs to
the point of complete alienation by other half. google would rather stick to
its questionable political preferences and lose 50% of the market. sounds like
a poor business decision.

------
iamleppert
It's about time Google cracked the whip on this entitled engineers! Maybe they
would shut down less products if employees were actually at their posts and
kept their noses clean! As an employee of a company, YOU are the one who needs
to just show up and do your job without complaints or causing a disruption in
the work place!

------
tareqak
If Google did get split up, maybe the baby Googles could keep their open
culture?

Update: I realize that this comment appears sarcastic and ill-meaning, but the
top ranked post on HN is about " Deconstructing Google’s excuses on tracking
protection" as of this moment (Friday, August 23, 2019 2:25 PM PDT) [0]. If we
take the following together:

1\. the open culture at Google as a known good quantity for some of the people
who like to work there and keep working there

2\. each of the products and services that Google offers today as respective
known good quantities

3\. The aggregate of Google's influence with respect to how the products and
services in 2. sometimes has negative impacts on the marketplace.

4\. The size of Google causes the open culture in 1. to start being a
hindrance to Google itself.

Then it seems obvious to me that the size and breadth of Google is the
problem. I genuinely mean all of this in good-faith. If Google stayed small,
then maybe services like Google Reader could still be around because the gap
between cost and benefit would not have been as wide.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779964](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779964)

------
m0zg
If they can actually pull this off (which I doubt), I might consider working
there again. I had an offer from them last Dec and turned it down, in part,
because this shit is borderline unbearable on the inside (I worked at Google
in the past when it was less political, and it was barely tolerable even
then).

A good number of people do nothing but stir shit up on the internal forums and
mailing lists. They also seem to be "untouchable" because stirring shit
typically takes the form of grievance peddling or white knighting, so if you
just let them go, their (rather extensive) cliques would give you hell for
"discrimination" and write petitions, go to the press, etc, etc, as we've seen
after a few higher profile departures over the past couple of years. You don't
want to be called a misogynist or racist for disagreeing with literally
anything they say, do you?

It'd be good for the leadership to grow some gender-appropriate gonads, and
refocus the company on the business side of things for a change. Activism is
fine, just not on the company's time, and not when it impacts the business or
other employees. Just like I don't want to hear what church (if any) you go
to, or what gender you prefer in bed, I also don't want to know what your
political preferences are. Nor do I like to feel obliged to share your opinion
any of those things, even if you think you're "right". I'm trying to work.
You're getting in the way.

This should apply equally to all: as a conservative, I don't want to hear
about conservative issues at work either. I want to hear about work, and
_only_ work.

