At a certain size, corporate roadmaps and people management are inevitably political. Google modifying their search criteria to participate in China's market.. is political. Google's HR department working towards demographic goals.. is political (I'm not judging its political-ness, but it ended up being political, didn't it?).
Each of the major FAAMG companies has a political/dominance issue of some kind, one that comes to mind more immediately than all the political issues associated with those companies. Taking a swag at it:
* Facebook: privacy - exploitation (personal data exploitation)
* Amazon: automation
* Apple: privacy - enforced (withholding from gov't)
* Microsoft: [I'm not even sure, they're flying low.. perhaps monopolization, or government backdoors?]
* Google: politicization/curation
I would suggest that Google's the clearest "ideation" company here, where censorship/curation is the most core part of their business model (Facebook is social media, Google is a borg-like machine collection all of the Internet and then putting algorithms around access to it), and most prone to politicization crossing the internal/external cultural barrier.
[edit:spelling]
Each of the major FAAMG companies has a political/dominance issue of some kind, one that comes to mind more immediately than all the political issues associated with those companies. Taking a swag at it:
* Facebook: privacy - exploitation (personal data exploitation)
* Amazon: automation
* Apple: privacy - enforced (withholding from gov't)
* Microsoft: [I'm not even sure, they're flying low.. perhaps monopolization, or government backdoors?]
* Google: politicization/curation
I would suggest that Google's the clearest "ideation" company here, where censorship/curation is the most core part of their business model (Facebook is social media, Google is a borg-like machine collection all of the Internet and then putting algorithms around access to it), and most prone to politicization crossing the internal/external cultural barrier. [edit:spelling]