“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

wes wrote: »

There is already a bias at Google, and that is what there advertisers want. Google is primarily an ad company and if advertisers don't want to associated with certain types of materials, then what they say goes.

Google actually lost a lot of advertisers recently, after ads from the likes of Pepsi appeared along side various types of extremist content. Those types of videos no longer receive ads.

Again, Google does what makes them money. They don't care about anyone's politics if it hurts there bottom line.

Absolutely that's another bias.

Doesn't change what I said though (and actually newspapers or TV network are also subject to pressure from advertisers but overall many still manage to have strong editirial lines).

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Saying women are, by and large, biologically inferior to men for this kind of work isn't a "conservative" position though. Many, if not most, conservatives wouldn't agree with that.

Definitely.

Is that what he wrote? I admittedly didn't read the whole thing carefully but my impression flicking through it was more that he was saying that on average men and women have affinity for different type of jobs.

Bob24 wrote: »

That's precisely censoring. Most organisations do it indeed. Hypocrites call it code of conduct when it applies to their policy but censorship when what's being flagged as unacceptable doesn't suit their views, but it's the same thing.

The question is what views are being censored and does it make sense.

Nothing was being censored here.

The employee openly vaunted and created a hostile work environment, made himself unable to basically work with certain demographics, made himself a figure of controversy and possible a hate figure (Someone like that in my office displayed those types of public opinions I'd be refusing to engage with them) and publicly posted stuff simply unbecoming of a an employee in a work environment

Not to mention he just openly declared a large demographic of his peers, colleagues and superiors as crap and unable to do their role.

I've got some stereotypes and issues born from first hand experience of certain cultures and nationalities, but even though I know I'm totally justified in my mindset and beliefs I 1) Don't declare it publicly in my workplace and 2)Try my best to behave unbiased towards colleagues that may be from those backgrounds, not assuming every single person I encounter is going to demonstrate the issues I have

Id say hes in for a big pay day from Google.
1. A private internal document was disclosed to the public
2. Being fired immediately for discussing something privately with a select group of colleagues.

Google are probably happy to just quickly fire this guy and let the story die and then pay out a six figure settlement rather than let it drag on.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Everyone just gets sacked nowadays if they put the head above the parapet. You are better having your own business then you don't run into these issues and have to follow the social engineering script.

This is being painted as some faux outrage, or social justice warrior stuff in terms of people being against it.

It's actually disturbing the amount of people that don't seem to understand the basic issues here. And they arn't with the guys actual arguments, even though many of them completely inaccurate, false or just made up, but its the actual effects of what he did in an organisation.

As someone who hasn't got much time for a lot of crap that goes on in the world today, how sensitive and touchy people get, and how easily offended people can be, that I can see the issue here and see this employee as being utterly braindead.....maybe its actually more a difference of expectations and experiences of large organisations or working environments rather then personalities or character.

Like ****, the company I work for is still to a large extent ransacked with cronyism and nepotism, still a bit of an old boys club and "who you know" but if someone under my remit did something like that, they'd be out the door by the end of the day. And we don't have the sophisticated disciplinary or HR process' like google would have.

When he latches onto the point of woman being more social and collaborative than men, he constructs a "solution" by which programming and coding could become a more paired and collaborative approach, to somehow help woman succeed in these areas more.

Completely ignoring the fact that collaboration is a massive core principle in any system design or just about anything in IT, unless you are literally a ****ehawk who they lock in a corner to code because you are such a freak, or because you are so junior or new you can only be trusted with fixing tasks, as you're not trusted enough or deemed worthy enough to chip in with tangible ideas, suggestions or solutions on a collaborative level.

The document is pretty awash with indications he deems woman inferior at certain roles, and ironically himself showing he has a poor understanding of said jobs.

There you are now! Trying to make the world a better place where it isn't your turn to make the world a better place.



First, what the hell was this lad thinking? All of these companies operate under the same ethos. Making the world a better place! You go against that, you're going to get burned. Did he imagine himself as some sort of martyr or what?

(Story time: One of the major tech companies in Dublin have hiring boosts/added points to your score if you are non white/homosexual/a woman, and it is driving a number of the coders and teams mad in fairness. No one cares if you're a woman. If you're a poor coder though, dragging everyone else down, well that's a different story, but it's something you're not allowed talk about.).

Which is fair. There is this mad "everyones an individual but don't be an individual" vibe to these companies. Does your head in. You can't be rational with these people. Forget it like, it's fùcken Hoolitown.

Second: Jordan Peterson has discussed this before. Companies need conservatives and liberals to function properly, if graded according to the Big Five in terms of personality.

Conservatives are your boring accountants who keep things going. High Conscientiousness.
Liberals are the creative/entrepreneurial new ideas lads typically. High openness to experience.
Interestingly, libertarians in particular score fairly highly on both.

We need each other, lol. You think Alan the Accountant could come up with Facebook?

Things don't work as well if your boring accountant lads feel more isolated from the company.

My prediction is that Google has been converged on by SJWs and will become increasingly more dysfunctional in the next while. If I was a potential competitor, I would love for Google to keep pushing this, as it means the company will continue to deteriorate and people will look for an alternative. I would also look to, possibly shorting Google's shares. Eg, Yahoo. The exact same thing happened to them.

Why will this happen?

Good coders are rare enough. They don't go to Google, they'll be hired somewhere else.

Also, people are being dishonest here. He didn't say biologically inferior.

For anyone who didn't think it could get political and cause potential brand image concerns for Google:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/julian-assange-offers-fired-sexist-google-engineer-a-job-1.3180620

I know not everyone is a fan of Assange, but regardless of what people think of him he has some influence and his involvement will increase attention on the issue.

Now that this is spreading outside the tech industry / silicon valley microcosm, more diverse noises can be heard than the initially unanimous "this anti-diversity manifesto is unacceptable": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-diversity-idUSKBN1AO1WY

I personally think the guy who wrote this has a valid point: "Dear @Google, Stop teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR. Thx in advance, A dad".

wes wrote: »

Interesting that per your article he claimed to have a Phd but Harvard said he only has a master. More ammo for Google it seems against this guy.

All to be confirmed but yes. On the other hand throwing this in at this stage would clearly look like they are trying to find valid arguments to fire him after the fact because they feel the original decision was not justified.