I find the Google/Chinese search engine troubling, but I do think people are playing this up to be a lot more than it should be. I think one fact is that Google is in an area and recruits people that are hyper liberal individuals. For example: not wanting to work with the U.S. military on projects, having AI use gender neutral writing, random PC things, little diversity in political thought etc. I don't think Google has so much changed as their employees have changed.
Look, I am a huge Google critic, you can view my past posts, but a lot of what employees are complaining about seems pretty laughable, unattainable and shows a lack of maturity. In my estimation, Google's power struggle between making money and its employees creeping political stances is and has been unsustainable. I think censoring results in China is one thing, but there are so many other cultural problems at Google that honestly just don't belong in a corporate environment. Google has long been seen as a playhouse, and has let employees be too dramatic and vocal about politics as well. In a normal company, it is -not- normal to have a sit down after an election to baby sit staff members, and offer grief counseling.
So while, yes Google certainly has some problems with "values," I think there are two problems, not just one. It's not so much that leadership has moved to drive profits no matter the cost (Google has long done that!) it's that while that is still happening there has been a shift in the company's politics. Again, I'm not talking about the Chinese censorship itself, I want Google/Microsoft/Facebook etc to not empower Xi. But it's all the other stuff going on that just seem so counter productive, not only to culture but to profits.
Declining to work with paid murderers is not a partisan position.
Opposing sexism is not a partisan position.
Attempting to reframe these sorts of things as “lefty silliness” and paint them with the same brush as being sad and disappointed that a rapist won the election is simply subterfuge.
> Declining to work with paid murderers is not a partisan position.
Calling military paid murderers is definitely a partisan thing. What else do you propose? Someone has to do the dirty work to keep the citizens safe.
> Opposing sexism is not a partisan position.
Are you talking about harassment cases. Have you been to Google or talked about it to a Googler? It generally is swift and works without any proof. What they are asking is anonymous complaint system and things like that, which can definitely have two thoughts.
What about Google giving huge advantage to women in hiring. Just one verified anecdote, in kickstart, which google uses to hire in Asia Pacific, men do get a call for interview within rank 50, many time lesser than that. And they have definitely called women if they got rank 1000, likely even more.
> Calling military paid murderers is definitely a partisan thing. What else do you propose? Someone has to do the dirty work to keep the citizens safe.
How exactly did US operations in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua etc. keep you 'safe'?
As someone that worked to get someone asylum from Afghanistan, there are many many many citizens in Afghanistan that long to have the US back with a significant presence. It's not easy sleeping when a car bomb just went off outside your house and it was targeted at you for not being a religious hardliner.. The US isn't always about keeping its own citizens safe, it often steps in when there is genocide, etc.
> there are many many many citizens in Afghanistan that long to have the US back with a significant presence
Which would be true of any military force that invaded, slaughtered hundreds of thousands and then pulled out leaving a power vacuum.
The US didn't go into Afghanistan to save people from car bombs.
If the US has somehow done you a favour as a result of its wars of aggression, it's a complete coincidence.
> It's not easy sleeping when a car bomb just went off outside your house and it was targeted at you for not being a religious hardliner..
Sounds like Iraq and the rise of ISIS doesn't it? Another US war of aggression that left hundreds of thousands dead along with a power vacuum filled by religious extremists.
The US went in because it facilitated terrorism and led to the direct death of 3000 Americans. The rise of religious extremism was well before the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Am I for US intervention as "world police," absolutely not. I don't agree with our presence in Iraq, but there is certainly a point where US presence is warranted and needed. Anything else is just a naive world view. I was like that when I was in my early 20s, then I grew up and realized how complex the world really is.
None of this address the original point I was making, in that US wars in the last few decades have not made Americans safer. Or anyone else for that matter.
The fact that people might now be clamouring to have them back after they left a power vaccuum to act as blocker on warlords and religious zealots fighting for control doesn't change that fact.
> nything else is just a naive world view. I was like that when I was in my early 20s, then I grew up and realized how complex the world really is.
Implying that I'm immature because I disagree with you doesn't make you look as good as you think.
> None of this address the original point I was making, in that US wars in the last few decades have not made Americans safer. Or anyone else for that matter.
Can you just recite the number of American civilians killed due to terrorist attacks after 9/11 and compare it with how many terrorists have seriously threatened and even died to kill Americans. If someone is ready to die to kill less than one person on average, it needs to be taken seriously.
While, yes there are things which every military mishandles from time to time, certainly US, you are calling out all activities, for which I hate to say it but you are too naive.
> Calling military paid murderers is definitely a partisan thing.
Support your claim, unless you think that using objectively true statements marks one as a non-conservative, which is blatantly silly.
There are many partisan "objectively true" statements, you "silly".
"immigrants are taking away jobs from our people"
"Israelis are murdering Palestine children"
"Palestines are murdering Israeli children"
"Donald Trump is a liar"
"Hillary Clinton is a liar"
Maybe not 100% "partisan", but I hope you get why I don't consider your "argument" persuasive.
> Opposing sexism is not a partisan position.
No one claimed otherwise.
> Declining to work with paid murderers is not a partisan position.
I think your statement speaks for itself. I suppose everyone in the military should just be thrown in jail, since they are just murderers. There is no "good" use for military. I'm sure you also blame the US for all of the world's problems. The world would live in tranquility were it not for the evil US military.
Can you name a single example of something that you seem problematic?
I smell flamebait. But parent is baiting too, with great points. Ok I'll bite:
Situation around firing of James Damore. Not even the firing itself as the (imo!) manufactured outrage that caused it.
From (not only) my PoV it was quite extreme, and quite disconcerting. And I consider myself a very left-leaning person.
> don't belong in a corporate environment
why not? not all companies should be money over everything. And google is still doing fine and turning on huge profits based on the work of these "liberal babies".
> recruits people that are hyper liberal individuals
Only from the very narrow perspective of current US politics - just normal in the mainstream West.
??? Define mainstream West
Western Europe, NZ, Australia, Canada. The US has always been an outlier amongst the rich nations: more religious, more violent, etc. None of the attitudes referred to by the parent would be 'hyper-' anything in most of these nations.
Social liberalism California edition is quite extreme even for (Western) Europe.
As a Western European, it really isn't.
So how did the Brexit happen? Le Pen?
There is clear shift away from extreme social liberalism, and denying that just convinces people that shift is necessary. Even when it might have disastrous consequences for the economy ...
If you're defining extreme by the shifting Overton window of European politics then suddenly fascism is not going to be extreme and mild post-war social democracy looks like Stalinist communism.
California isn't that progressive.
Don't confuse social programs with liberalism.
> I don't think Google has so much changed as their employees have changed.
This is exactly it. A lot of people who genuinely loved technology, programming, were nerdy, etc long left the company. Could just be an arrogant of becoming big, and selecting for physical attribute diversity.