
Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings - stygiansonic
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/google-cancels-tgif-weekly-all-hands-meetings.html
======
hgytr
First. Thanks to HN for not demanding phone numbers: anonymity allows to say
things that cannot be said.

Second. Many googlers read HN. In some sense, HN is the extension of the
internal forums.

CNBC made a good summary and I can comment on each bullet point.

Larry and Brin probably stopped attending because nothing important is said on
TGIFs. More people -> more leaks -> less interesting information -> less
attendence. Nothing surprising here. Sundar's solution seems to be resorting
to boring once a quarter all-hands about business strategy. I wonder what the
attendance will be.

It's a hypocrisy to complain about troubles with trust and at the same time
ban political or whatever discussions. Googlers are generally very smart folks
and understand that whatever they say may be used against them in the future,
when policies change once again. Today you post a memegen where you state that
triangles are better than squares, tomorrow you get fired because squares have
become the symbol of some protected class. You have to apply a form of forward
self-censorship and be very careful about what you say to whom.

I don't think there is a tension between execs and workers, but only because
the two classes live in different worlds.

Don't get me wrong. Google is still the best workplace with top notch pay, but
as it's got big, it's also morphed into a typical big corporation with typical
corporate politics.

Just my 2c.

~~~
rainyMammoth
> Don't get me wrong. Google is still the best workplace with top notch pay,
> but as it's got big, it's also morphed into a typical big corporation with
> typical corporate politics.

Sorry but I cannot stand that level of internal koolaid. I guess you also
think that Google got the "smartest" people? There are literally thousands of
companies working on problems way more interesting and with more stakes and
upsides for humanity than Google and the adtech industry. I would qualify all
of those companies as "better place to work" than Google. It is maybe the best
place to work if you have no sense of ethics, want to take it easy, work 9 to
5 and maximize your money.

~~~
buzzkillington
> It is maybe the best place to work if you have no sense of ethics, want to
> take it easy, work 9 to 5 and maximize your money.

Hey, that's me to a t. Google is not actually that great for that. The pay is
average and they make too much of a song and dance about helping people, even
if you're working on ML used to ferret out dissidents in China.

The good companies for 9 to 5 casual evil are small >50 man shops which
require security clearance to work at.

~~~
mav3rick
Pay is well above average. Regardless of what HN spews, Google foundationally
made search and mobile more accessible around the world. I don't know what
"great" company you work for but it's hard to top that for impact.

~~~
buzzkillington
> Pay is well above average

Depends on what you mean by average. When I talked to google I was looking at
L5 for just over 300k with stock and bonus. In Evil Inc I was making well over
over 500k all cash for the same job description.

~~~
thibautg
300k is average?

That’s more than the ceiling for _CEOs_ of public companies in my country.

Tech salaries in the US really seem out of proportions.

~~~
buzzkillington
If you value your work little, expect to be paid little.

I see no reason why I should get paid less than a CEO, when most of their job
is similar to that of a kindergarten teacher.

~~~
sabas123
It also is much more than most politicians and ministers. Especially the
latter are typically way more influential imo.

~~~
justinclift
Kickbacks, future speaking appointments (for decades afterwards), etc probably
raise the "official" salary for various politicians and ministers.

------
kccqzy
This reminds me of this sentence from a Wired article[0] in August:

> TGIF's transformation from candid conversation to press conference was
> pretty much complete.

As a Googler I'm totally not surprised this is happening. The writing has been
on the wall for a very long time.

[0]: [https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-
misery...](https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery-
happiest-company-tech/)

~~~
threeseed
Unfortunately that's what happens when the discussions get leaked.

It's hard to be candid and open if what you say might end up distorted in the
media and without you having an ability to defend yourself.

~~~
pas
I fail to see how that really matters. Facebook had all kinds of media
exposure (Cambridge Analytica, Libra, etc). Nothing happened.

~~~
slimed
He's referring to individuals.

There have certainly been consequences for some of them.

~~~
pas
Okay, fair point, that's an interpretation that occurred to me after posting
the comment, but I'm not really familiar with any high profile case. Has FB
sent away anyone? Or G? Due to leaks about real talk I mean. (And I guess the
answer must be some sort of yes, after all they are huge organizations and the
culture of taking responsibility via looking-for-new-challenges is a rather
Western thing, so maybe I'm just too far from it.)

------
fooker
RIP

I'm one of those people who go work at Google once every few years.

The transformation of culture from about 2013 onwards has been somewhat sad to
experience.

Interestingly, most people who have been continuously employed there have not
felt the very slight gradient. However, the changes in culture, freedom, food
quality, etc are fairly obvious when one returns after ..say.. 18 months.

Here are some semi-concrete metrics: Decreasing TGIF frequency (now gone..),
'micro kitchen' snack variety and quality, which doors in buildings you are
allowed to enter from(:facepalm:), badging in for meals(also :facepalm:),
weird restrictions on business flights, attempt to make everything look
uniform (no candies in receptions! No decorations..), defense contracts(much
publicized here), any other discretionary spending by teams.

Anything I forgot?

~~~
zestyping
The dismantling of Google.org in 2015.

We were once an engineering and product team that used Google's unique reach,
resources, infrastructure, and technology to create tools and services purely
for good. We reunited survivors of disasters, helped them find shelter,
alerted people to keep them safe, built technology to help MSF fight Ebola,
and predicted flu epidemics. We worked to lift the most vulnerable among us.
Teams all over the company and around the world helped us do things only
Google could.

That Google.org no longer exists. The "Google.org" label has been reassigned
to Google's donation programs. Google donates money to many meaningful
efforts, and that's great; but anyone can donate money. Google used to donate
money _and_ build things for good, and it does the latter no more.

~~~
xiphias2
I (an Eastern European software engineer who was working at Google
Switzerland) can't forget the Christmas gift I got from Google that I donated
Chromebooks to students in U.S.

It was the weirdest Christmas present that I got in my life, and believe me I
got some very weird clothes from my mum when I was young.

------
tanilama
Nothing to see here. While most employees are chill, I would imagine Google
has a disproportionation of hyper ideologists who are intolerant to different
opinions and self-righteous to bring everything down to achieve personal
validation.

The trust is reduced, but it is both way, between employer and employees.
Without that, any conversation is meaningless.

~~~
nemo44x
If you're an engineer at Google, you've probably had a great technical
education, you feel empowered because if Google would hire you, you can assume
most anyone else would too; you probably feel smart because of this and in
many ways you probably are a pretty smart person. You're very well paid and
compensated and you know it.

There are a lot of things here that not only give someone confidence but also
conviction. As you rise up the social hierarchy, and a Google engineer is very
high on the social hierarchy, you begin to question your beliefs less and less
and have more conviction that you are right - you must be enlightened. Because
if you're so awesome as to be an in-demand engineer (at Google!), clearly your
opinions are more informed and enlightened than people below you on the social
hierarchy. This conviction is going to grant you confidence to not only openly
proclaim positions on topics most people find private, but use this newfound
social power to leverage dominance over those subordinate to your leadership
position in society.

How could you be wrong? Just look at how awesome you are - your expensive
house, nice car, rare foods, and luxury recreation activities validate this.
Lift your hammer of justice (it's a heavy burden you carry with the
privilege's you were born to have) and smash any who your in-group find
problematic. After all, it's only collateral damage if some honest, humble,
and hard working people are destroyed in your wrath to feed your new,
insatiable appetite for further social conquest.

~~~
zarkov99
That can't be the whole story. Google is not the only provider of high status
jobs for nerds. Why aren't Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook also
rife with this sort of activism?

~~~
catalogia
It also doesn't account for the behavior of similarly privileged non-nerds.
Swap out "technical education" in that comment with any other form of
specialized training that leads to high salaries. How does the specialization
of computer science educations compare to the specialization of neurosurgery
educations?

The notion that engineers are shitty people because they weren't made to take
enough liberal arts classes falls flat for me. Learning about ethics doesn't
make people more ethical[0][1]. And I'd say the number one problem with this
industry, and the root of its increasingly poor reputation among the general
public, is a lack ethics.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19529374](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19529374)

[1][https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/01/07/168650666/new-y...](https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/01/07/168650666/new-
year-s-resolutions-need-more-than-good-intentions)

~~~
username90
> And I'd say the number one problem with this industry, and the root of its
> increasingly poor reputation among the general public, is a lack ethics.

Correction: The number one problem with every industry is lack of ethics. The
root of its increasingly poor reputation is that the richest companies in the
world will always face extra scrutiny. Few people cared for them 10 years ago
when they were small fries and conventional companies topped the charts, but
today when the majority of the 10 most valuable companies are tech companies
the world will naturally start focusing on them more so than any other
industry.

------
scohesc
It's almost like the employees are slowly seeing Sundar as somebody they can't
relate with under the company's now "controversial" common goals and
objectives. Now Google management is panicking and doing everything they can
to reduce employee's face time with the higher-ups since management knows the
company is moving in a direction that a large number of employees disagree
with!

~~~
zozbot234
> It's almost like the employees are slowly seeing Sundar as somebody they
> can't relate with

I might agree but I'm not sure that this is _news_. Ever since Sundar became
CEO there, there's been a somewhat widespread perception that he would focus
on beancounting and running Google as a "mature" firm, with little or no
innovation to speak of. (For that matter, you could even view this as a very
reasonable response to increased challenges in the Internet advertising
market, which is of course where Google makes most of their money.)

~~~
ignoramous
> ...would focus on beancounting and running Google as a "mature" firm, with
> little or no innovation to speak of.

Surprising that folks would think along those lines given Sundar's background
as head of product with Chrome browser, Chrome OS, and Android before he took
over as CEO in 2015.

~~~
throwaway13337
Don't forget Google Toolbar.

That was the product credited with getting him noticed for better or worse. A
strategically vital and utterly boring piece of software which aligns well
with how the company has changed.

------
drewg123
As an Xoogler (left in 2015) I find that news highly disappointing. I think
that without honest, regular Q&A at events like TGIF, the company will become
more and more out of touch.

When I was there, TGIF was watered down, but we still asked uncomfortable
questions of management. I remember asking a question of Sundar when he was
head of Android when the Nexus 6 came out questioning our chasing Apple into
the high end market, rather than making affordable devices.

~~~
jtolmar
Having left more recently (mid 2019) - TGIF had been increasingly sporadically
scheduled from 2016 onwards, to the point that many of us had thought it was
cancelled a few times between then and now. In my local office, snacks got
rescheduled and shuffled around to be further away from where the live stream
happened and sometimes start at the same time as the broadcast. The writing
was on the wall for a long time.

A lot of people blamed this on leaks, but that already came to a head in the
2013-2015 era, where I saw announcements go from being made a week ahead of
time at TGIF, to a day, to hours, to a few hours after the fact, to not at
all. I'd attribute more to new executives who were more hostile to being asked
hard questions.

~~~
sneak
I get the impression (as a total outsider) that Google went from being a
cohesive "us" that had clear inside/outside communication, to a collection of
disparate groups (code monkeys/execs, for lack of a better term, as well as
others) that do not feel aligned/allegiance to each other. Is that in any way
accurate? That the internal unity got balkanized (primarily by senior
management)?

~~~
jtolmar
Management above the director level was always invisible, but it went from
invisible and assumed benevolent to invisible and assumed hostile (spurred by
concrete actions). I don't think they were considered part of an "us" at any
stage. Despite all the people ranting about political culture on Hacker News,
my experience among leaf level employees was one of growing solidarity, and
that sense of "us" increasingly being extended to temps, vendors, and
contractors.

------
40acres
Sounds like Googlers spoiled the well. I'm not sure exactly why but Google
employees always seem to be in the news about something and have leaked
conversations that management had with them. In some instances the controversy
is warranted (Rubin Payout, etc.) but it must be annoying from a management
perspective.

~~~
compiler-guy
Pichai is making over $100,000,000 a year. That is more than enough to deal
with all the annoying crap that goes on.

~~~
bborud
It is enough to expect him to perform better as a leader at least.

------
blaisio
It makes sense, if I was CEO and only 20% of employees were attending, and
whatever I said at the meeting got leaked, I'd cancel them too. And I think
most people would. Also, I think a lot of people just want to go to work and
work, they don't care about politics or even business strategy.

~~~
utopcell
(1) 20% is 20,000 people; (2) almost everyone sees the summaries the next
days; (3) TGIF is [was] not about politics. I agree that leaks is what seems
to have brought TGIF down though.

------
kartayyar
As a Xoogler who just wanted to get on topic product updates ( and Sergey
jokes I guess - he really is insanely funny), I actually found it frustrating
that it was an overloaded forum for any and all random topics.

Were I working there, this would have made sense to me.

I didn't work there to be an activist. I worked there to go work on products.

I don't get other comments that say "courted activists". The recruiting pitch
is about impact, a good work environment, compensation and interesting
products.

------
malvosenior
I wonder if companies like Google and GitHub that actively courted activists
are now regretting their decision. For a long time it was common knowledge
that you would try to keep stuff like that out of the workplace. The past 10
years have been an about face to that strategy and now we're seeing more or
less complete chaos internally at these previously pro-politics (some kinds of
politics) workplaces.

My guess is there will certainly be a shift away from other companies trying
to do this in the future. Rightfully so imho.

~~~
nostrademons
I think it's more that they actively courted assertive people with opinions
and then created a culture where you can bring your whole self to work. They
did this so that they could get the benefits of creativity, which inherently
requires emotional engagement, which requires that you not repress your
emotions. (It turns out that it's not possible to _selectively_ repress
emotions: "I've got to watch what I say about politics" subconsciously spills
over into "I've got to watch what I say" which spills over into "I've got to
watch what I say about anything new and controversial", and you lose the
latter well before the former.)

The part that's biting them is that now that they're 100,000 people,
creativity is wasted anyway, because any brilliant new product idea will get
killed long before launch and if it doesn't it'll probably catastrophically
damage Google's brand. So the upside of this cultural decision is worthless to
them, and the downside is incredibly chaotic and difficult to manage.

I think we'll see a shift away from this at _Google_ , but I think other
startups will still consciously embrace it. When you're 10 people and are
about to go out of business if you don't come up with a brilliant idea, your
incentives are dramatically different from when you're 100,000 and make tens
of billions from your existing business lines every quarter.

~~~
reaperducer
You can be creative and still act like a professional in a professional
environment.

One example is advertising agencies, which in the last century (in spite of
what you see on popular television) were very button-up places but created
cultural touchstones we still know today.

(Edited to clarity I'm referencing ad agencies in the 20th century, not the
SV-wannabe agencies a few have evolved into today.)

~~~
notJim
My brother worked in ad agencies, and this is the opposite of what he said.
Tons of drinking and just generally bad behavior which would only be tolerated
in the worst silicon valley startups. He moved to the startup world because it
has a _healthier_ work culture.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
We are surrounded by functional alcoholics (10% in the US drink most of the
booze). They naturally tend toward career paths that support their behavior.

~~~
ekianjo
90% of people surrounded by 10% ? The word "surrounded" seems inappropriate.

~~~
Spooky23
Maybe a better word could have been chosen. But in perspective, almost every
team on average has at least one person with an alcohol problem of some sort.

~~~
LoSboccacc
and then there's Ireland.

------
ralph84
Activists at work used to focus on things that would improve the lives of
workers. Now they just want everyone to be as miserable as they are.

~~~
underwater
I figure there are just people of every political persuasion who default to
being confrontational.

When they are on your side you see them as principled and necessary, if you
disagree with them they are antagonistic SJWs.

------
pmoriarty
Are all-hands meetings actually ever useful to anyone or ever more than merely
internal PR?

~~~
henrikschroder
I was at Yahoo under Marissa Mayer, who instated a weekly Friday all-hands,
FYI, obviously modeled on whatever Google had. Those who worked at Yahoo
before her said that it was a huge change, because previous upper management
was pretty much invisible, no-one knew who they were, what they did, what they
were thinking, which direction the company was going in.

So even if you're 100% cynical about it and thinking the all-hands are just
internal PR, it was still a positive change, because you got to see upper
management, see them talk about where the company was going and why, and they
had to "defend" their direction.

Of course, the flipside to this is that if it seems like upper management
doesn't have their shit together, meetings like these make that obvious, which
can torpedo morale.

~~~
inerte
Can agree. I was also at Yahoo when FYI was implemented.

It was 45 minutes of scripted presentations, followed by Q&A (and later,
raffles :))

The Q&A part was great. Super-awesome to know the executives will at least try
to answer any random question that got enough upvotes during the week. Of
course we would sometimes get the canned "we will look into that" answers,
which Marissa would tell the exec to come prepared with the real numbers next
time.

------
pixiemaster
So, the executives stopped attending and then the employers stopped attending
as well. what a shocking correlation.

~~~
m0zg
More likely: employees were attending too much for the reasons inconvenient to
the executives. As an ex-Googler: this is the surest indication yet that
Google is in deep trouble. TGIF would be canceled from time to time before
when the execs suspected things would get confrontational and employees
wouldn't like even remotely honest answers. But to cancel them basically
permanently is going to blow up in Sundar's face. The ongoing communication
channel, as difficult as it might be politically for both sides, is an
integral (and very beneficial) part of Google culture. Or, _was_, at this
point.

~~~
arkitaip
What might happen is the rise of an informal communications channel managed by
employees that Google executives cannot direct let alone cancel. That's far
worse in a way.

~~~
mbo
A communications channel controlled by the workers and not the managerial
structure? This is a truly tragic development.

~~~
m0zg
The issue of "control" is pretty peripheral to this conversation. TGIF was a
fixture in the company culture and as such nobody really "controlled" it. It
was just expected that it'd happen every week, you'd go grab a beer, and watch
the execs answer the top voted Dory questions they'd rather avoid, at least
from time to time. That was a crucial feedback mechanism which is now at least
reduced if not gone entirely. This will make the system (Google) less stable.

------
cromwellian
I’ve worked at IBM, Oracle, and Google and have friends at Intel, Microsoft
and Adobe. I’d say the reduction of openness and transparency Of management
with employees is regrettable but the biggest thing I still enjoy about Google
culture is still intact: is the relative lack of egotistical assholes,
political douchebags, macho primadonna engineers, and other toxic people that
I’ve encountered at other companies.

In general, the overall friendliness of people to work together, lend help,
and accept or provide “constructive” criticism has been a welcome respite.

At the other companies mentioned, I’ve encountered a mixture of people
deliberately backstabbing and sabotaging other groups projects, engineers who
scream at or insult others, or just straight up refusing to admit fault.

Granted this is likely to change because Google is hiring too many people too
fast which will reduce cultural assimilation.

But at this point I don’t think I could stomach working on a team at another
Big company with some “alpha” macho engineer types unless their name happened
to be Linus Torvalds, and even then I don’t think I’d want to be in that
environment.

Microsoft seems like it has vastly improved after Balmer left.

I’m also not going to work at any company that doesn’t value work/life
balance.

~~~
username90
Is it really that bad at other companies? I also work for Google and always
wondered where everyone find all these "Brilliant Jerks", but maybe it is just
that there aren't that many of them here?

------
ChrisCinelli
The parts of Google culture that were very unique are being slowly eroded.

Most of the outsiders have seen Google's practice as something that does not
belong in a "mature" firm (the zombie corporations they were coming from).

People wanted to go to work for Google to change the world. Now they are
joining because it is a comfortable company to work for.

As early employees stared leaving or becoming complacent, more bozos started
to be hired and shifting the culture.

They have been wrecking Google's great culture a little bit at the time.

------
acruns
I turned down an offer from Google (cloud) because I didn't want to work for a
company that was so focused on politics internally. This was just after they
fired Damore, not that I agree or disagree with his opinion, but because
Google seems promote internal fighting. That type of culture doesn't appeal to
me.

~~~
daenz
>not that I agree or disagree with his opinion

You just outed yourself. I wish I was joking, but anything other than instant
condemnation of what he wrote gets you labelled.

~~~
ngngngng
You phrased this funny, and I think that's why you're getting downvotes since
the sarcasm wasn't obvious.

You're right though, what we just saw with the linux foundations tone policing
and the Lindsay Shepherd situation absolutely confirm this. There is a very
effective group of activists that can make life hell for you if you don't hate
the same things as them with the same fervor.

~~~
sagichmal
This is a deeply disingenuous interpretation of events, to the extent of being
a lie.

Damore, Woods, and that other dude who went on a misogynist Twitter tirade for
a full day, were all deliberate assholes in public. There were consequences
for that. This is just and correct.

~~~
zarkov99
Could you please provide a link to anything that Damore might have written or
said in public that would justify calling him an asshole? Because I have read
his paper, listened to some of his interviews and to me he looked as far from
an asshole as any human can be.

~~~
dave_b
He also never intended to be public about it, he kept his memo internal and
posted it in a place that was soliciting feedback on the topic. It only became
public when one of the activist types leaked it.

------
utopcell
This is so sad on many levels. I first saw this article on HN and then went
back to search my mail folder in disbelief (I hadn't seen an internal memo
about this.) TGIF used to be a wonderful forum to communicate with leadership
and enjoy our latest and greatest achievements.

------
subsaharancoder
I'm expecting the internal meme tool, aptly named memegen, to suffer the same
fate as TGIF.

------
sys_64738
Ad company cancels all hands meeting. Why is this news?

~~~
lucasmullens
Because that "ad company" is one of the highest valued companies in the world,
and Google's TGIF is something even many people outside of Google are familiar
with.

~~~
sys_64738
Not sure why you’d put ad company in quotes.

------
ddingus
When the agenda is a net good, an all hands on meeting and or some potential
leaks make great sense.

Now that is much less true, ditchng the meetings also makes sense.

Google grows up, ends up like most big companies.

Not a shocker, but the initial, "users really trust us to do good"culture is a
major clash. Could be a very painful, enduring one.

------
bborud
I'll repost what I posted on my Facebook timeline since it seems relevant to
this discussion. One thing I'd like to add though: given how things have
changed over the past decade, the culture at Google is no longer just a
shareholder or employee concern: it is a societal concern. Companies like
Google and Facebook own our lives and it is in humanity's interest that the
company be under proper leadership. The alternative is more regulation on
these kinds of companies (which probably isn't a bad thing in any case).

It has been a decade since I worked at Google, but this makes me really sad.

To be fair, the Google culture had its fair share of problems with whiny,
entitled little shits and "brogrammers". And it has had its some spectacularly
bad executives who are probably irredeemable assholes as well as executives
who are too weak to keep their colleagues in line.

But even at around 30.000 employees it was a fundamentally good place to work.

Yes, it was competitive as fuck, but that's what happens when you have a high
density of talent and ambition in one place. Much of the internal
competitiveness was good. At least the way I saw it. I haven't worked many
places where you start to work on something, only to discover that someone
else is working on the same thing and this becomes a positive. You can
collaborate and/or compete. And both can, and did, lead to better outcomes.

Of course, occasionally you'd have deadbeats that would game the system and
use the efforts of others to promote themselves unfairly, but largely I think
people deserved their success.

A few friends of mine still at Google have told me that the company I worked
for is gone. It is a different company now. More corporate. Less open. Less
creative. Less fun. Most don't really talk about Google anymore. Be it in
positive or negative terms.

TGIF was among the things that set Google apart. That even inspired other
companies and led them to understand that it is important to bring the top and
bottom of the company in contact with each other on a regular basis.

I don't buy that Google has outgrown TGIF. I think the problem is that top
management simply haven't been capable of evolving. I suspect Sundar Pichai
simply isn't able to lead the company in a manner that can preserve what was
good about Google. If "only" 25% of employees follow TGIF (which would be a
great turnout for most companies) that's on Sundar. That is his failure as a
leader. It isn't that the company has outgrown it.

And that's sad, because when the soul of a company dies, eventually, so will
its ability to attract talent and perform. It'll be a slow decline. But this
is nonetheless a clear symptom of decline.

Sundar needs to get his act together or Larry needs to find a more suitable
CEO.

------
chewz
Seems like Larry and Brin have re-created Soviet factory in full.

> The best way for a man to advance in the Communist hierarchy is to make
> speeches constantly at party and public meetings. [1]

* Workers' councils * Factory committies

Google in 1930
-[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3draTawRFas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3draTawRFas)

[1]
[https://books.google.pl/books?id=mNexJrn4wmgC&pg=RA4-PA4&lpg...](https://books.google.pl/books?id=mNexJrn4wmgC&pg=RA4-PA4&lpg=RA4-PA4&dq=soviet+factory+meetings&source=bl&ots=mZBHPpgBwk&sig=ACfU3U2q90H9xnbrq8gH-
NplUO006QEdSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi80aTosu7lAhUJa1AKHd_PCTQQ6AEwG3oECBAQAQ)

------
threeseed
Nobody actively courted activists.

It's more just than tech startups generally skew younger and newer generations
want their companies to reflect their own values. Which isn't necessarily a
bad thing.

And these companies are not in complete chaos. In fact apart from the James
Damore incident there hasn't been any significant change in the company
cultures.

~~~
malvosenior
> _Nobody actively courted activists._

Yes, actually they did actively court them. Here's one of many examples:

[https://diversity.google/](https://diversity.google/)

Younger generations are not politically homogeneous, Google picked a political
position and pushed it hard.

~~~
triceratops
What is the political position picked by the site you provided?

~~~
manigandham
Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left.

~~~
CydeWeys
Google is currently fighting unionization efforts. That's not leftist.

~~~
manigandham
What Google as a profit-seeking corporation does is not the same as the
majority internal political culture amongst its employees.

~~~
reroute1
So Google is a ' left to far left' company except when it's being 'right to
far right' sometimes?

~~~
manigandham
1) Yes, it's a giant company that does many things.

2) The thread is about the majority political position of its employees. This
is entire separate from the actions as a corporation.

3) Many of things Google does that people think are "right-wing" have nothing
to do with left-vs-right at all.

~~~
reroute1
> Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left.

1) Completely contradicts what you said earlier above

2) How? When does it stop being people and start being a corp? Aren't the
decisions made by employees?

3) So? You just linked 'diversity' to left and far-left, isn't that the same
thing that started this side thread? How is that site linked with activism or
left politics? You mentioned a "pretty clear" connection.

~~~
manigandham
Obviously nothing is absolute, that doesn't make anything contradictory.

The _majority_ political stance is left/far-left. The company is massive and
sometimes will do things people consider right-wing, but usually those things
are not actually "right-wing" but just normal behavior of a giant corporation
seeking to maximize profit and shareholder value.

Corporations and capitalism are not antithetical to left-wing politics.

~~~
nlfwhulsdhouv
> Corporations and capitalism are not antithetical to left-wing politics.

Fuck I didn't realize I actually like capitalism whoops.

Wikipedia:

> The term was later applied to a number of movements, ... socialism,
> communism, anarchism and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries.

This is the funniest thing I've read all week thanks.

~~~
dang
Would you please not post ideological battle-style comments that take HN
threads further into flamewar? Those lead to scorched earth, and we're trying
for something different than that here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Your account has also posted thoughtful comments that have contributed to good
conversation. That is good.

------
tempsolution
Wow, weekly all-hands. What a waste of time. God save anyone who works in a
company like that.

------
cletus
When I first joined Google, I loved this meeting. This was 2010. You got some
pretty candid responses and presentations from the executives. Fast forward
2-3 years and it had largely turned into a dry run of a public announcement
later that day. All very choreographed, no real answers to anything. So
probably around 2013 I stopped even paying attention to it.

What I find most interesting is the change that happened in this country,
including Google, with Trump being elected. Google had enough closet Trump
acolytes and sympathizers who were removed from reality like only a Trump
supporter can be (it seems).

You can disagree with policies like immigration, tax breaks for the GOP donor
class and so on without thinking that supporter is delusional.

But what changed is that those same Trump supporters suddenly thought
reprehensible behaviour was suddenly justifiable, even required. Examples:

\- Leaking videos of TGIF because you think the company oppresses your
political views (just leave!)

\- Worse, you leak personal details of employees who speak up against issues
you believe in so they essentially get targeted by alt-right zealots.

In no world can I fathom me taking my personal political disagreement to the
point of doxxing someone. How anyone can think this is justifiable is utterly
beyond me.

You see this in the US government too. Like we now have too many leaders who
are prepared to burn institutions to the ground to further political goals.
Look at Mitch McConnell's stonewalling of the Obama administration (more
cloture motions than any previous Senate by a huge margin), choosing not to
hold hearings on nominees, stuffing the judiciary with underqualified minions
and so on. Look at the Justice Department, which is now defending the White
House despite any evidence to the contrary.

How can anyone think this is OK? Whatever norms are established by the GOP now
will absolutely be used against them in the future (eg a simple majority on
Supreme Court nominees). Do these people not realize how dangerous it is to
destroy institutions meant to protect all of us?

But that's the Trump era we live in. I've met more than one Trump adherent who
simply will not or cannot see fault in anything Trump does. And I'll tell you,
that scares the bejesus out of me.

I fully agree with Google employees protesting things like helping the US DoD
better identify kill targets (identifying what not to kill is the same as
identifying what to kill) and supporting the oppression of a billion people by
pandering to Chinese censorship. Gone are the days when Sergey was essentially
responsible for pulling Google out of China.

But what Google really needs at this point is a purge of people who are
prepared to dox their fellow employees. Those people are utterly destructive
to the company and need to be excised.

So anyway I'm not surprised at TGIF being scaled back. It's been on the cards
for years and, at this point, it's honestly not much of a loss.

Whatever Google's problems are however I don't think Sundar is the leader they
need.

~~~
ttraub
You make a couple of good points such as Google's about-face with regard to
China, and you bemoan doxxing.

Yet, you bitterly criticize Trump supporters. Trump supporters are the ones
getting doxxed and cancelled on social media.

The most famous leaked TGIF was when Pichai announced his opposition to the
2016 election results, and promised to somehow oppose the new President. I
have to say, I was appalled to hear such blatant partisanship from the chief
executive of such a huge company. Of course, business types have always had
political leanings one way or the other, but they were rarely so blatant. That
TGIF did irreparable harm to Google's reputation. I've seen hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of outraged comments on social media. Google lost a lot of good
will that day.

------
hiroking81
Now Google management is panicking and doing everything they can to reduce
employee's

