Ex-Google engineer describing the company's role in China censorship(threader.app)
threader.app
Ex-Google engineer describing the company's role in China censorship
https://threader.app/thread/1051725524064591872
240 comments
The fact that management and employees give the same rationale for doing a thing isn't evidence of bad faith, because this is also what would happen if there were a good reason, or at least one that looks good to some reasonable people, that both management and employees were convinced by.
I'm not familiar with this case, but if e.g. the reason is "Whatever we do, the Chinese government is going to ensure that any search results its population can see are censored. So our choice is whether they get censored Google search results or censored someone-else search results, and it's hard to see how the first of those can be worse either for us or for them" ... then I don't know whether it's actually a good reason, but it does seem like a reason that some decent and intelligent people might find convincing, even if they have a normally functioning sense of guilt.
For the avoidance of doubt, the opposite position -- "if you do this you're an accomplice to oppression, and 'if we don't do it someone else will' is a lousy response" -- also seems to me one that some decent and intelligent people might find convincing. No one on either side of this needs to be an idiot or a scoundrel. (Though I bet some people on both sides are both, because that's always true.)
I'm not familiar with this case, but if e.g. the reason is "Whatever we do, the Chinese government is going to ensure that any search results its population can see are censored. So our choice is whether they get censored Google search results or censored someone-else search results, and it's hard to see how the first of those can be worse either for us or for them" ... then I don't know whether it's actually a good reason, but it does seem like a reason that some decent and intelligent people might find convincing, even if they have a normally functioning sense of guilt.
For the avoidance of doubt, the opposite position -- "if you do this you're an accomplice to oppression, and 'if we don't do it someone else will' is a lousy response" -- also seems to me one that some decent and intelligent people might find convincing. No one on either side of this needs to be an idiot or a scoundrel. (Though I bet some people on both sides are both, because that's always true.)
The counterargument is that censoring political speech is decidedly indecent regardless of anyone's intentions. If political censorship ceases to be unconscionable, then a culture is convinced that there is no right to speech or conscience.
That is clearly true for China. It seems to be true for Google as well.
That is clearly true for China. It seems to be true for Google as well.
>The counterargument is that censoring political speech is decidedly indecent regardless of anyone's intentions
This is (as I understand it) a deontological, rather than a consequential, argument. So that cannot really be a 'counterargument' because it has a disjoint set of premises. You can argue that the premise for GP's argument (something along the lines of `The decision of whether to operate Google in China should depend on the aforementioned having better outcomes for chinese citizens than otherwise`) is incorrect or you can argue on the basis of his premise, but giving a different argument on a different premise (something like `the rule "don't censor political speech" should never be broken`) does not make a counterargument.
This is (as I understand it) a deontological, rather than a consequential, argument. So that cannot really be a 'counterargument' because it has a disjoint set of premises. You can argue that the premise for GP's argument (something along the lines of `The decision of whether to operate Google in China should depend on the aforementioned having better outcomes for chinese citizens than otherwise`) is incorrect or you can argue on the basis of his premise, but giving a different argument on a different premise (something like `the rule "don't censor political speech" should never be broken`) does not make a counterargument.
Part of the argument is that decent and intelligent people can disagree on this.
The counterargument is that suppressing truth and speech is indecent, regardless of intent. That is, the lesser wrong is still wrong. Boiling people down to utilitarian guesswork is part of the problem. It is fair to point out that the alleged decency is premised on skipping past established ethical and moral frameworks.
The counterargument is that suppressing truth and speech is indecent, regardless of intent. That is, the lesser wrong is still wrong. Boiling people down to utilitarian guesswork is part of the problem. It is fair to point out that the alleged decency is premised on skipping past established ethical and moral frameworks.
A lot's hanging on the definition of "decent" here, and utilitarianism is also an established ethical and moral framework even if you consider it a pernicious one.
So let's avoid arguing over the definition of "decent" by being more specific. I claim:
It's possible for someone to endorse the position taken by Google management on this even though that person is highly intelligent, is far from indifferent to others' suffering and oppression, and habitually goes out of their way to treat others well, including others who are unlike them and far away.
I do, of course, agree that if you get to define what "decent" means then you can make it so that no decent person disagrees with you. In this case, I think that requires a definition that has built into it either an answer to the specific object-level question at hand, or else a specific position on a subtle philosophical question (consequentialism versus deontology versus virtue ethics versus whatever else) on which smart people who spend their whole lives thinking about this stuff are far from all agreeing.
So let's avoid arguing over the definition of "decent" by being more specific. I claim:
It's possible for someone to endorse the position taken by Google management on this even though that person is highly intelligent, is far from indifferent to others' suffering and oppression, and habitually goes out of their way to treat others well, including others who are unlike them and far away.
I do, of course, agree that if you get to define what "decent" means then you can make it so that no decent person disagrees with you. In this case, I think that requires a definition that has built into it either an answer to the specific object-level question at hand, or else a specific position on a subtle philosophical question (consequentialism versus deontology versus virtue ethics versus whatever else) on which smart people who spend their whole lives thinking about this stuff are far from all agreeing.
If we presume that the world isn't black and white, and we give some credence to the principle of "least harm"..
There's a case to be made for providing more net information while being less than 100 percent morally pure in the process.
The choice we're confronted with isn't "uncensored vs censored". It's "more information and access vs less information and access".
It's a practical call. Chinese people are very practical, they'll figure it out.
There's a case to be made for providing more net information while being less than 100 percent morally pure in the process.
The choice we're confronted with isn't "uncensored vs censored". It's "more information and access vs less information and access".
It's a practical call. Chinese people are very practical, they'll figure it out.
The concern isn't about personal purity. It's about other human beings being treated as less equal or less important.
Everyone is equal on some level just by being human. They are inherently worth treating well. That includes freedom from death and harm. But that also includes freedom of thought, conscience, and expression.
Everyone is equal on some level just by being human. They are inherently worth treating well. That includes freedom from death and harm. But that also includes freedom of thought, conscience, and expression.
If you really believe that, then you must understand that 99% of a loaf is better than none.
Docs, Hangouts, YouTube. All very difficult to censor. Its whack a mole, complicated by https. Information wants to be free.
Standing on principle here denies them that 99%. Are you going to make that call for them, or should they make it for themselves?
Docs, Hangouts, YouTube. All very difficult to censor. Its whack a mole, complicated by https. Information wants to be free.
Standing on principle here denies them that 99%. Are you going to make that call for them, or should they make it for themselves?
I guess you could call turning politic prisoners into organ donars practical
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/asia/china-organ-harvesting/
As is deliberately killing pedestrians after accidentally injuring them in order to pay a lessor death benefit instead of expensive care.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...
Im not worried about their practicality but rather that they are culturally morally bankrupt and revealing how morally bankrupt people like Google are.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/asia/china-organ-harvesting/
As is deliberately killing pedestrians after accidentally injuring them in order to pay a lessor death benefit instead of expensive care.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...
Im not worried about their practicality but rather that they are culturally morally bankrupt and revealing how morally bankrupt people like Google are.
Nationalistic flamewar is not allowed here, so please don't haul in talking points for that purpose.
Moreover, if you post another national or racial slur, like you did here and confirmed below, we will ban you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Moreover, if you post another national or racial slur, like you did here and confirmed below, we will ban you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I will avoid similar topics in the future I suppose this forum is only really fit for tech. Things that drift into political matters stir up strong feelings.
The existing systems in China place various pressures on the people there. You can't make the claim that Chinese people are morally bankrupt based on those cases alone.
The government is, for sure. However, it's the legal system's fault for letting the punishment of injury outweigh the punishment of manslaughter.
Furthermore, it's not as if Google has gone out of its way get into a position of censoring search results in China. Those search results are going to be censored no matter what. What Google does, whether they operate in China or not, doesn't effect that. All that changes is how much search-engine-generated money goes to Google or doesn't.
The government is, for sure. However, it's the legal system's fault for letting the punishment of injury outweigh the punishment of manslaughter.
Furthermore, it's not as if Google has gone out of its way get into a position of censoring search results in China. Those search results are going to be censored no matter what. What Google does, whether they operate in China or not, doesn't effect that. All that changes is how much search-engine-generated money goes to Google or doesn't.
The people are responsible for their government.
This just isn't true in all cases.
Oh, yeah, give me more of that raw prejudice. Got any blood libel?
We just asked you to stop posting like this. If you do it again we will ban you.
Do it. The post I'm responding to is in fact raw prejudice. Calling a billion people morally bankrupt. Nobody would tolerate a comment like that about black people.
Ban me for calling it.
Ban me for calling it.
It was a shitty comment and I've replied to it, but someone else breaking the site guidelines doesn't make it ok to break them yourself.
I appreciate that. Slight aside -- I wasn't the guy you warned yesterday, I jumped in sticking up for him because I thought he was right about a community problem.
At the time I posted, the comment explicitly calling all chinese people "morally bankrupt" was 6 hours old and it was not gray.
Apologies for my overheated response.
At the time I posted, the comment explicitly calling all chinese people "morally bankrupt" was 6 hours old and it was not gray.
Apologies for my overheated response.
[deleted]
> management and employees give the same rationale
That is called ideology
"Ideology is the practice of augmenting reality."
http://mitp.nautil.us/feature/271/ideology-is-the-original-a...
That is called ideology
"Ideology is the practice of augmenting reality."
http://mitp.nautil.us/feature/271/ideology-is-the-original-a...
'Self-serving biases' are well-studied psychological phenomena. [0]
We can expect that a Google employee working with China will be more favourable to the work, even accounting for factors like selection bias.
My money is on self-justification being at least a part of the explanation, but that doesn't preclude some amount of sucking-up to management as well.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias
We can expect that a Google employee working with China will be more favourable to the work, even accounting for factors like selection bias.
My money is on self-justification being at least a part of the explanation, but that doesn't preclude some amount of sucking-up to management as well.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias
This effect is really strong, and people don't usually realise they're doing it. "Power creates opinion", as the man says. As does loyalty. It's much more psychologically comfortable in an organisation if you reflexively adopt its attitudes and values.
> Are they "just" sucking up to management or are they maybe the only ones who buy the propaganda?
IMO, neither. I don't like this purported dichotomy between "management" and "colleagues/employees". I have seen several of my former classmates and colleagues transition into management roles. Their ideology hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. For example, in the Indian context, their view of Kashmir and the army's role there is pretty much the same as the government propaganda. "Management" did not convince them when we were all still in college, and did not convince them when we were all low-level employees. The people just happened to grow up in an environment where a certain ideological bent was considered "right", "virtuous", etc.
IMO, neither. I don't like this purported dichotomy between "management" and "colleagues/employees". I have seen several of my former classmates and colleagues transition into management roles. Their ideology hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. For example, in the Indian context, their view of Kashmir and the army's role there is pretty much the same as the government propaganda. "Management" did not convince them when we were all still in college, and did not convince them when we were all low-level employees. The people just happened to grow up in an environment where a certain ideological bent was considered "right", "virtuous", etc.
Well this is kind of different thing since it's politics that is not necessary related to your business (I assume).
Here you had people leaving because of the clash between business ideology and their (as well the outsides) moral values. The company did not only advance and hire people who already had no moral values. They just found out. Now they shift people around until the compatible ones stay.
Here you had people leaving because of the clash between business ideology and their (as well the outsides) moral values. The company did not only advance and hire people who already had no moral values. They just found out. Now they shift people around until the compatible ones stay.
I wouldn't go as far as to say the company hired people who had no moral values. Just different from that of people who advocate anti-censorship values. Progressive political values are the current mainstream. Liberalism has long been on the decline in the mainstream. Both managers and employees, by and large, subscribe to progressivism. As a clear example of this culture, just look at what kinds of voices have been silenced on social media, and what kinds have been given free reign. I'm not even talking about the content of the employees' speech here.
Technically, removing results by DMCA or hate speech or "fake news" is about the same procedure as political censorship.
The mechanism is already there. The difference is only which part of the model to tweaks and for whom.
The mechanism is already there. The difference is only which part of the model to tweaks and for whom.
This isn't suprising, every person have different moral compass and value. I too would gladly work on this. Censorship is just a necessary work around (for now) to enter the chinese market.
This is lazy thinking. Or do you think the unabomber was justified because he simply had a different moral compass?
Not who you replied to, but your comparison is a bit off. Everyone has to choose their own morals and values, and what they think is right or wrong. But no one can choose whether something is legal or not. If someone thinks that destroying property or killing a person for reason XYZ is ok, than they have the right to believe that - and surprisingly many people do. But that doesn't mean they are allowed to, or should be doing it. We have laws because we can't rely on people's morals.
To him it was justified and no matter how evil a person you think it is, I'm pretty sure you can always find some other people who think its is right.
Is it really that odd?
There are a lot of posters in HN that are FAANG employees, yet talk big game about Open Source, Data Security, Free Speech, etc yet time and time again these companies fail to uphold these values.
When you are making a 6+ figure salary with vesting options it's really easy to bend your principles and if you are lucky you can become wealthy enough to become a philanthropist somewhere down the line to undo some of the damage you have done.
There are a lot of posters in HN that are FAANG employees, yet talk big game about Open Source, Data Security, Free Speech, etc yet time and time again these companies fail to uphold these values.
When you are making a 6+ figure salary with vesting options it's really easy to bend your principles and if you are lucky you can become wealthy enough to become a philanthropist somewhere down the line to undo some of the damage you have done.
Sounds like peak employee engagement to me! I’ve heard this is what companies should strive for.
Judging by how many internal political issues they have I don't doubt there are some shitty people making Google evil.
I really don't understand what people are upset about. Whether or not Google rolls out a censored search engine in China has no influence at all whatsoever in any way shape or form over whether or not the communist party will continue to enforce censorship. If Google backs out for political reasons, it's not like the party is going to suddenly see the error of their ways and do an about face on censorship.
It's just business. Americans has been doing business with China, and the Chinese people for decades. In spite of the fact that the west and China are beholden to very different identities, we can still cooperate on things to the benefit of everyone.
People are 99% the same everywhere, but the 1% that makes us different are matters of identity, and that's what we gripe about and go to war over. It's kind of stupid if you ask me, but then again, no one in the history of the world has ever come up with a reliable solution for human nature.
It's just business. Americans has been doing business with China, and the Chinese people for decades. In spite of the fact that the west and China are beholden to very different identities, we can still cooperate on things to the benefit of everyone.
People are 99% the same everywhere, but the 1% that makes us different are matters of identity, and that's what we gripe about and go to war over. It's kind of stupid if you ask me, but then again, no one in the history of the world has ever come up with a reliable solution for human nature.
If Google ever rolls out a search engine where if you type "Tiananmen Square" you get back nothing of value, but your identifying info goes into some government watch list, people will remember that. It's disingenuous to pretend it's not important. And whoever authorized that will have to live with themselves and what they did.
> we can still cooperate on things to the benefit of everyone
Yes. What is the benefit of hobbling a world-class search engine so that it intentionally prevents "everyone" (I include Chinese citizens in your "everyone") from accessing free information and news and facts about the world and about China itself?
All countries are guilty of mistakes and atrocities. So what is the benefit of preventing citizens from discovering this, learning from it, and discussing it?
Yes. What is the benefit of hobbling a world-class search engine so that it intentionally prevents "everyone" (I include Chinese citizens in your "everyone") from accessing free information and news and facts about the world and about China itself?
All countries are guilty of mistakes and atrocities. So what is the benefit of preventing citizens from discovering this, learning from it, and discussing it?
> 13/ I encourage employees of Google who have been asked to work on censored products to stand up against these requests, as I did in 2006, and make it known that Google's willingness to censor is immoral.
I'd rather formulate it this way:
I encourage employees of Google who have been asked to work on censored products to take a look from different perspectives, apply their values and morale, make an informed decision on whether they want to support what they're asked to work on - and have the spine to follow through with their decision.
The reason why I disagree with the original statement is that it feels like people are forcing their own moral decisions on others. "I'm convinced it's bad, so you have to agree and act like it".
I'd rather formulate it this way:
I encourage employees of Google who have been asked to work on censored products to take a look from different perspectives, apply their values and morale, make an informed decision on whether they want to support what they're asked to work on - and have the spine to follow through with their decision.
The reason why I disagree with the original statement is that it feels like people are forcing their own moral decisions on others. "I'm convinced it's bad, so you have to agree and act like it".
I would try to simplify it like this: "would you be able to look the people China will suppress with your technology in the eye and tell them 'I built the tools China use'?"
edit: reformulated it to something less loaded
edit: reformulated it to something less loaded
Honestly, hearing the opinions of many Chinese people with family still in China who want Google to go to China due to the current state of affairs with Baidu is what made me consider that there may be reasonable arguments on both sides of this (For full disclosure I have heard the opinions of Chinese people with family in China who disagree with Google going to China as well). I haven't come to a firm conclusion either way, but like most things it is more complicated than it original seems.
It is an odd thing that a company can on the one hand become known as the one firing an engineer who tried to open an honest discussion on a hot subject like 'gender discrimination' because that engineer was deemed to lack a moral compass, while on the other hand bending over backwards to assist an oppressive - but lucrative - dictatorship in implementing a real-life version of Oceania's Ingsoc [1] [2]. As if these people are so blind-sided by their own ideology that they do not recognise their own moral compasses twirling as if they're in the Bermuda triangle and the 'no' being struck from their previous motto of 'do no evil'.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingsoc
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/china-social-credit-a...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingsoc
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/china-social-credit-a...
firing an engineer who tried to open an honest discussion on a hot subject like 'gender discrimination'
That's not an accurate summary of Damore's motives, or the reasons for firing him.
on the other hand bending over backwards to assist an oppressive - but lucrative - dictatorship in implementing a real-life version of Oceania's Ingsoc
Corporations are amoral by design. So I don't find this odd at all, but is an incredibly dangerous development.
That's not an accurate summary of Damore's motives, or the reasons for firing him.
on the other hand bending over backwards to assist an oppressive - but lucrative - dictatorship in implementing a real-life version of Oceania's Ingsoc
Corporations are amoral by design. So I don't find this odd at all, but is an incredibly dangerous development.
That's not an accurate summary of Damore's motives, or the reasons for firing him.
What is then?
What is then?
IMHO the Damore memo got way too heavy into the political angles at the end (straying away from the science and citing non-analytical political opinion pieces and even an anti-feminist Wordpress blog of all things), so I'm not sure I'd call it "100% honest". That being said, my personal impression is that such was more driven by naivety than malice; firing was an over-reaction.
For the capitulation to China, though, the scale seems different. I would agree with the parent that this seems to contradict core philosophy -- much of the words espoused in their "Owner's Manual for Google Shareholders" in their IPO (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504...) now seem hollow (for reasons more than just this). Do they still believe strongly in the "long term" as they claim? How does submitting to one of the world's most repressive places (information wise) "make the world a better place"? You certainly can't claim "unbiased and objective" search results when there is a government telling you certain things you can't include. Companies may be amoral by design (as another poster said) but Google at least in their manifesto certainly seemed to strive to be different. Not anymore, apparently.
For the capitulation to China, though, the scale seems different. I would agree with the parent that this seems to contradict core philosophy -- much of the words espoused in their "Owner's Manual for Google Shareholders" in their IPO (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504...) now seem hollow (for reasons more than just this). Do they still believe strongly in the "long term" as they claim? How does submitting to one of the world's most repressive places (information wise) "make the world a better place"? You certainly can't claim "unbiased and objective" search results when there is a government telling you certain things you can't include. Companies may be amoral by design (as another poster said) but Google at least in their manifesto certainly seemed to strive to be different. Not anymore, apparently.
The Economist wrote a rebuttal of Damore's memo here. I'm a little disappointed that Google didn't write their own rebuttal of the memo. Just firing Damore fed into the victim complex that some of these people suffer from.
The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore - https://www.economist.com/international/2017/08/19/the-e-mai...
The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore - https://www.economist.com/international/2017/08/19/the-e-mai...
This would have been a really good piece of work if an editor had trimmed out everything before "let’s examine its argument". Putting words into Larry Page's mouth is in lousy taste. It isn't satire and isn't a form that adds anything honest to the article.
But past that it was a pretty reasonable argument. Pruning out the par-for-the-course of accusations that Damore really meant something other than what he actually wrote it made for an interesting and constructive read.
But past that it was a pretty reasonable argument. Pruning out the par-for-the-course of accusations that Damore really meant something other than what he actually wrote it made for an interesting and constructive read.
That article is pretty lacking. For its length, it employs a lot of fuzzy logic, lacks proper context and doesn't support its own points. I'll go through the more well supported points. I'm going to have to do a bit of reorganizing because the article is basically a gish gallop and poorly structured:
1. "Then you make a giant leap from group differences between men and women on such measures as interest in people rather than things, or systematising versus empathising, to differences in men’s and women’s ability to code"
The author seems to think that ability to code is some inborn talent that must be evenly distributed between men and women. Coding ability (like math, knitting, doctoring and literally every other human skill) is a confluence of natural talent, interest, coaching, and raw time spent. People can have equal talent for a skill, but ultimately have radically different ability due to their chosen paths in life. If Damore's hypothesis is correct and men do have a greater natural interest in coding, then we could expect men to have a greater ability to code, on average, even if men as a whole had less aptitude for coding. Damore didn't clarify because he probably didn't expect anyone to interpret his words with such malice.
2. "You ignore many other gender differences, basing your argument only on a few that you think support your conclusion."
These differences should be cited and used to build a counter argument.
3. "You’re ignoring everything else that could explain the gender gap."
Damore's memo does not take place in a vacuum. It's an alternate view offered in contrast to the popular mainstream view.
4. "The gender differences you cite differ between countries and over time."
Not an argument, or even a rebuttal. More of a confounding factor.
5. "They (gender differences) don’t even support your argument, because you don’t seem to understand what makes a great software engineer...Software engineering requires a broad mix of skills ... Teamwork, in particular... Senior engineers must manage teams—and by your own reasoning that should mean that women, with their greater empathy and interest in people, should be over-represented at that level."
Being a low level software engineer is a prerequisite to being a high level software engineer. If women are underrepresented at the bottom, it's expected they will be underrepresented at the top. You might expect an "enrichment" effect of women in management, but there may be other factors (that I'll talk about later) that result in women leaving the software profession before that point. All of this assumes that high empathy and interest in people are even required to be a good manager. Steve Jobs was often considered a good leader but it doesn't seem like he gave a crap about the people under him.
6. "You clearly don’t understand our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire"
Not an argument.
7. "Even if you are right that more men than women are well-suited to the job of software engineer at Google, you are wrong that taking steps to recruit more women is inherently unfair to men."
Not an argument.
8. "There is plenty of evidence that women in Silicon Valley suffer sexism and discrimination. Read Susan Fowler’s description of the harassment she experienced at Uber before leaving the firm in December. Look at the responses to “Elephant in the Valley”, a recent survey of senior women in tech: among its findings was that two-thirds had been excluded from networking opportunities because of their sex. And beyond our industry, women are less likely than men to be given plum assignments, are given less useful feedback, are seen as pushy when they ask for pay rises (men are seen as ambitious) and, in leadership roles, may be seen as either competent or likeable, but rarely both. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” you write. But we know there is sexism! We don’t need to infer it from the existence of gender gaps."
An argument! All of this is certainly true and should be addressed by internal and legal processes. In addition, all of these are potential explanations of the gender gap in software development. However, these points alone are not sufficient to make that argument. What we need here is context. Does the rate of discrimination differ between fields that are lopsided, like computer science, and fields that are more even, like law and medicine?
9. "Finally, let’s look at your contention that by trying to recruit more women Google is discriminating against men. You seem to think that if we stopped paying any attention to applicants’ gender when deciding who to hire, we would naturally converge on the “right” share of men and women, that is, the share that matches the distribution of talent in the recruitment pool. I don’t believe that. Unless we make special efforts, some women will be put off applying by the heavily male culture; those doing the hiring will be influenced in their assessments of candidates’ ability by the stereotypes they’ve formed in that male environment. We should “treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group,” you write. That is what we are doing."
This is so much feeble it hard to figure out where to start. First, no one really cares about talent in the recruitment pool, even if they use the word "talent". What they really care about is ability (see my above definition of ability). If you have solid math skills but can't tell a for-loop from an if-statement, google probably isn't trying to recruit you for a programming job. "Special Efforts" is the problem, not the solution. Harvard makes "special efforts" not to recruit asians. Fifty years ago, companies made "special efforts" to hire white men. "Special Efforts" are discrimination, full stop. Reverse sexism is still sexism.
In this article's quest for "context", they missed all of it. There are a couple of major data points that they glossed over.
1. The paradox of gender ratios in STEM fields by country. Gender ratios in STEM fields are most extreme in countries that are most gender equitable (like the nordic countries) and least extreme in countries known for sexism (software developers in Zimbabwe are 50% women and india has a much higher percentage of women in programming). One explanation is that Software development in these countries is composed of more westernized individuals who have more progressive views than other people in their country. The other explanation is that talented women are basically "funneled" into computer science in those countries because it's even harder for them to enter other professions.
2. The prevalence of women in law and medicine. The stigmas against women entering these was pretty extreme, yet women smashed these barriers to the point where most people entering the medical profession are now women. There are still areas in medicine that are male dominated, but there are also areas that are female dominated.
There's also a philosophical question that needs to be addressed. Is the existence of a gender gap proof of sexism? If yes the forensic science and veteranarian science have a lot to answer for. Those professions are more lopsided in favor of women then computer science is in favor of men.
Obviously the issue is complicated, but it's not clear that the discrimination that women face in computer science is greater than they face in other fields where representation is more equitable. My biggest takeaway from Damore's memo was that Google was 110% committed to the idea that the gender imbalance is due to sexism. And since it can't find particular instances of sexism to punish or stop, everyone must be so guilty that they can't see it. Google's response to the Damore memo says quite a lot.
1. "Then you make a giant leap from group differences between men and women on such measures as interest in people rather than things, or systematising versus empathising, to differences in men’s and women’s ability to code"
The author seems to think that ability to code is some inborn talent that must be evenly distributed between men and women. Coding ability (like math, knitting, doctoring and literally every other human skill) is a confluence of natural talent, interest, coaching, and raw time spent. People can have equal talent for a skill, but ultimately have radically different ability due to their chosen paths in life. If Damore's hypothesis is correct and men do have a greater natural interest in coding, then we could expect men to have a greater ability to code, on average, even if men as a whole had less aptitude for coding. Damore didn't clarify because he probably didn't expect anyone to interpret his words with such malice.
2. "You ignore many other gender differences, basing your argument only on a few that you think support your conclusion."
These differences should be cited and used to build a counter argument.
3. "You’re ignoring everything else that could explain the gender gap."
Damore's memo does not take place in a vacuum. It's an alternate view offered in contrast to the popular mainstream view.
4. "The gender differences you cite differ between countries and over time."
Not an argument, or even a rebuttal. More of a confounding factor.
5. "They (gender differences) don’t even support your argument, because you don’t seem to understand what makes a great software engineer...Software engineering requires a broad mix of skills ... Teamwork, in particular... Senior engineers must manage teams—and by your own reasoning that should mean that women, with their greater empathy and interest in people, should be over-represented at that level."
Being a low level software engineer is a prerequisite to being a high level software engineer. If women are underrepresented at the bottom, it's expected they will be underrepresented at the top. You might expect an "enrichment" effect of women in management, but there may be other factors (that I'll talk about later) that result in women leaving the software profession before that point. All of this assumes that high empathy and interest in people are even required to be a good manager. Steve Jobs was often considered a good leader but it doesn't seem like he gave a crap about the people under him.
6. "You clearly don’t understand our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire"
Not an argument.
7. "Even if you are right that more men than women are well-suited to the job of software engineer at Google, you are wrong that taking steps to recruit more women is inherently unfair to men."
Not an argument.
8. "There is plenty of evidence that women in Silicon Valley suffer sexism and discrimination. Read Susan Fowler’s description of the harassment she experienced at Uber before leaving the firm in December. Look at the responses to “Elephant in the Valley”, a recent survey of senior women in tech: among its findings was that two-thirds had been excluded from networking opportunities because of their sex. And beyond our industry, women are less likely than men to be given plum assignments, are given less useful feedback, are seen as pushy when they ask for pay rises (men are seen as ambitious) and, in leadership roles, may be seen as either competent or likeable, but rarely both. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” you write. But we know there is sexism! We don’t need to infer it from the existence of gender gaps."
An argument! All of this is certainly true and should be addressed by internal and legal processes. In addition, all of these are potential explanations of the gender gap in software development. However, these points alone are not sufficient to make that argument. What we need here is context. Does the rate of discrimination differ between fields that are lopsided, like computer science, and fields that are more even, like law and medicine?
9. "Finally, let’s look at your contention that by trying to recruit more women Google is discriminating against men. You seem to think that if we stopped paying any attention to applicants’ gender when deciding who to hire, we would naturally converge on the “right” share of men and women, that is, the share that matches the distribution of talent in the recruitment pool. I don’t believe that. Unless we make special efforts, some women will be put off applying by the heavily male culture; those doing the hiring will be influenced in their assessments of candidates’ ability by the stereotypes they’ve formed in that male environment. We should “treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group,” you write. That is what we are doing."
This is so much feeble it hard to figure out where to start. First, no one really cares about talent in the recruitment pool, even if they use the word "talent". What they really care about is ability (see my above definition of ability). If you have solid math skills but can't tell a for-loop from an if-statement, google probably isn't trying to recruit you for a programming job. "Special Efforts" is the problem, not the solution. Harvard makes "special efforts" not to recruit asians. Fifty years ago, companies made "special efforts" to hire white men. "Special Efforts" are discrimination, full stop. Reverse sexism is still sexism.
In this article's quest for "context", they missed all of it. There are a couple of major data points that they glossed over.
1. The paradox of gender ratios in STEM fields by country. Gender ratios in STEM fields are most extreme in countries that are most gender equitable (like the nordic countries) and least extreme in countries known for sexism (software developers in Zimbabwe are 50% women and india has a much higher percentage of women in programming). One explanation is that Software development in these countries is composed of more westernized individuals who have more progressive views than other people in their country. The other explanation is that talented women are basically "funneled" into computer science in those countries because it's even harder for them to enter other professions.
2. The prevalence of women in law and medicine. The stigmas against women entering these was pretty extreme, yet women smashed these barriers to the point where most people entering the medical profession are now women. There are still areas in medicine that are male dominated, but there are also areas that are female dominated.
There's also a philosophical question that needs to be addressed. Is the existence of a gender gap proof of sexism? If yes the forensic science and veteranarian science have a lot to answer for. Those professions are more lopsided in favor of women then computer science is in favor of men.
Obviously the issue is complicated, but it's not clear that the discrimination that women face in computer science is greater than they face in other fields where representation is more equitable. My biggest takeaway from Damore's memo was that Google was 110% committed to the idea that the gender imbalance is due to sexism. And since it can't find particular instances of sexism to punish or stop, everyone must be so guilty that they can't see it. Google's response to the Damore memo says quite a lot.
I really think he was just a naive, young guy who perhaps was motivated by "being correct" and "logical" over more pragmatic ways of living and socializing. He was fired because a bunch of right wing nut jobs started attaching themselves to him (and by proxy, google) and the last thing Google wants is their name attached to these people, so they threw the baby out with the bath water.
There is a narrative being pushed aggressively by people who identify as left wing, liberal, 'equality above all else' types etc that seems to deny biological facts and human nature while championing for equality of outcome (bad, because that's not how human potential works) and affirmative action (favouritism to minorities and women) and usually place the white western man as the evil in the world.
These people will brand fascist those who urge for calm conversation supported by facts and reason. They will deplatform and protest and even violently attack those who speak up about there being more to this stuff than discrimination, namely individual motivation, and whatever the gender influenced magical secret sauce is that forms human motivations and personality especially when you look at population averages.
These people will brand fascist those who urge for calm conversation supported by facts and reason. They will deplatform and protest and even violently attack those who speak up about there being more to this stuff than discrimination, namely individual motivation, and whatever the gender influenced magical secret sauce is that forms human motivations and personality especially when you look at population averages.
James Damore, as far as I can tell, argued that people gravitate towards things that interest them and gender plays a role in this and that is why women are not 50% of the engineers and programmers.
Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson for example agree and talk about these things, the cultural phenomenon of 'group identity', 'social justice warriors' and 'equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity' and are generally opposed to this radical movement that tries to tell us that you are defined by what you (must) identify as or what group you belong to, eg. white heterosexual male.
Bret Weinstein, professor of biology, gets attacked and has to resign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_p...
Jordan Peterson gets protested a lot and labeled a right winge extremist despite being left wing liberal (but an advocate for 'fixing your shit' so you can 'step up your game'): https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2018-03-06/news/jordan-pe...
Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson for example agree and talk about these things, the cultural phenomenon of 'group identity', 'social justice warriors' and 'equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity' and are generally opposed to this radical movement that tries to tell us that you are defined by what you (must) identify as or what group you belong to, eg. white heterosexual male.
Bret Weinstein, professor of biology, gets attacked and has to resign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_p...
Jordan Peterson gets protested a lot and labeled a right winge extremist despite being left wing liberal (but an advocate for 'fixing your shit' so you can 'step up your game'): https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2018-03-06/news/jordan-pe...
> James Damore, as far as I can tell, argued that people gravitate towards things that interest them and gender plays a role in this and that is why women are not 50% of the engineers and programmers.
imo you've overstated his point, I think he would argue that some of the difference can be explained by biological differences. But if that was the full extent of his assertions I don't think he would have got into so much hot water. As I've argued elsewhere on HN, Damore made several further claims, such as:
1) Hiring practices and funding which aim to counter the gender gap are wrong...
2) ... and Google cannot see this because of its inherent left-wing bias.
imo you've overstated his point, I think he would argue that some of the difference can be explained by biological differences. But if that was the full extent of his assertions I don't think he would have got into so much hot water. As I've argued elsewhere on HN, Damore made several further claims, such as:
1) Hiring practices and funding which aim to counter the gender gap are wrong...
2) ... and Google cannot see this because of its inherent left-wing bias.
People have measurable and quantifiable biases that have an effect on how they perceive others.
While there are actual differences between individuals, what is presented as an objective biological fact is often a false projection of someone's subjective biases (i.e. sexism and racism).
While there are actual differences between individuals, what is presented as an objective biological fact is often a false projection of someone's subjective biases (i.e. sexism and racism).
Who are the rightwing nutjobs? Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin?
The first people that approached him were the guys from Project Veritas, veritably right wing nut jobs. Joe Rogan has a libertarian slant, and while not a right wing nut job himself, he does have a large right wing following who definitely appreciated hearing from Damore.
And here's your boy Dave Rubin:
"In an interview in March 2018, Rubin said he would vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election if a progressive like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Gavin Newsom is running against him.[29] Rubin also characterized President Trump as a political moderate, saying "he's a Democrat in a lot of ways", and spoke favorably of Trump's cuts in government regulations.[30]". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Rubin
And here's your boy Dave Rubin:
"In an interview in March 2018, Rubin said he would vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election if a progressive like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Gavin Newsom is running against him.[29] Rubin also characterized President Trump as a political moderate, saying "he's a Democrat in a lot of ways", and spoke favorably of Trump's cuts in government regulations.[30]". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Rubin
What Rubin says makes sense, viz. Sanders. Not that this is any kind of choice one would want to make.
Also, it is not at all surprising that it would be right-wing nut jobs who would approach Damore -- as we can see even here, no one else wants to discuss it, no matter what the merits of the argument, such as they were, might be.
Also, it is not at all surprising that it would be right-wing nut jobs who would approach Damore -- as we can see even here, no one else wants to discuss it, no matter what the merits of the argument, such as they were, might be.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-dam...
Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Peter Duke then a succession of other right wing trolls on Youtube.
Jordan Peterson isn't a "rightwing nutjob" though. He's just controversial.
Jordan Peterson is pretty much the definition of right wing nutjob by anyone who is not a men's right activist, cherry picking studies on invertebrate species to justify his philosophy. Just for that one topic we could bring in an actual expert on marine invertebrates to refute Jordan Peterson's foundations. https://twitter.com/baileys/status/997646354414522368
"Oh I absolutely did not read the book and have no intention to do so. I find hate-reading to be a waste of my time." - your Expert
So, she is drastically misrepresenting and misunderstanding ONE point he made in ONE chapter of his book (hardly a foundation of his philosophy), and she openly admits to having never read his book, and that's the example you want to give? Interesting...
Can someone mansplain "hate-reading" to a layman?
So, she is drastically misrepresenting and misunderstanding ONE point he made in ONE chapter of his book (hardly a foundation of his philosophy), and she openly admits to having never read his book, and that's the example you want to give? Interesting...
Can someone mansplain "hate-reading" to a layman?
Hate-reading, noun:
The act of reading a piece of writing by someone you dislike for political reasons and mentally discrediting them by refuting their arguments with specious or fallacious reasoning. Primarily undertaken in the conscious pursuit of confirmation bias.
The act of reading a piece of writing by someone you dislike for political reasons and mentally discrediting them by refuting their arguments with specious or fallacious reasoning. Primarily undertaken in the conscious pursuit of confirmation bias.
If you really think Jordan Peterson is a right wing nut job then I just don't know what to say to that. And the fact that there are other reproductive behaviours besides the lobster one doesn't really disprove the point. You can observe the same behaviours (that of a male hierarchy of competition) all across nature. I find it interesting that the thread you quoted didn't actually deny the lobster thing either. Nor really show that the alternative mating/sex behaviours of other animals disprove the hierarchy thing. I mean, I'm skeptical of some of the things he says, but just claiming he is wrong doesn't make him so without something to back the claim up.
It's not about a moral compass, it's about attracting top talent. The universities push this ideology, so if you want to get the alumni from the universities to work for you, you have to abide by the tenets.
You mean, you have to pretend you abide by the tenets...
The limit of profit based entities. Capitalism today but probably as old as humans.
Except that the notion of "top talent" appears to be a myth.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt...
Interesting link, I just skimmed it but I don't think it quite showed top talent is a myth, but rather that our ways of measuring that talent is flawed, this syncs up with ideas from Moneyball as well. We know that pitching is a talent, but we struggle to project who will be the future star due to our preconcieved biases.
So in the story they found a stronger correlation between tacit knowledge than simply IQ for instance.
So in the story they found a stronger correlation between tacit knowledge than simply IQ for instance.
> who tried to open an honest discussion
I mean, that's precisely what people disagreed on. One side thinks his way is the best and most obvious way of getting to the truth, and the other side thinks he's a deliberate provocateur who's loose with his facts. There's nothing wrong with being on a side, but at the same time we shouldn't paper over that it is A Side.
I mean, that's precisely what people disagreed on. One side thinks his way is the best and most obvious way of getting to the truth, and the other side thinks he's a deliberate provocateur who's loose with his facts. There's nothing wrong with being on a side, but at the same time we shouldn't paper over that it is A Side.
Damore clearly wanted an open and honest discussion, which is why he wrote so politely and provided citations for all his arguments.
The resulting meltdown and repetitive lying about his memo just goes to show how right he is. Nobody has successfully defeated his arguments which aren't even complicated, they're obvious and common sense. Instead they just try to shoot the messenger.
The resulting meltdown and repetitive lying about his memo just goes to show how right he is. Nobody has successfully defeated his arguments which aren't even complicated, they're obvious and common sense. Instead they just try to shoot the messenger.
> which is why he wrote so politely
This is kicking the can down the road on noticing the disagreement. Some people think he wrote in a perfectly reasonable, rational way. Other people think he wrote in a deliberately provocative way, to cause a stir. It's certainly possible to use polite-sounding language in deliberately provocative ways.
Just to go with the most extreme possible example, if I wrote an article about any conceivable version of "was the Holocaust really as bad as people say?", it wouldn't be enough to just word the whole thing politely. I'd have to be extremely considerate of my audience audience to write something like that, and of the real world context in which my audience was going to read the article, and what it would mean in light of their experiences. My motivations for choosing that topic would be under intense scrutiny, since everyone has heard heard similar-sounding things before from horrible people. If I'm not extraordinarily considerate about those things, I'm either an idiot, or I'm deliberately causing trouble. Anyone can see that, right?
Some people feel that way about Damore's arguments. They feel the content is inherently hurtful, such that starting an "even-keeled, rational-sounding debate" about it is inherently rude, at least without doing a lot of work to acknowledge the feelings context. And then obviously lots of other people feel differently. That's a big disagreement, and you don't have to be an insane person to be on either side of it.
This is kicking the can down the road on noticing the disagreement. Some people think he wrote in a perfectly reasonable, rational way. Other people think he wrote in a deliberately provocative way, to cause a stir. It's certainly possible to use polite-sounding language in deliberately provocative ways.
Just to go with the most extreme possible example, if I wrote an article about any conceivable version of "was the Holocaust really as bad as people say?", it wouldn't be enough to just word the whole thing politely. I'd have to be extremely considerate of my audience audience to write something like that, and of the real world context in which my audience was going to read the article, and what it would mean in light of their experiences. My motivations for choosing that topic would be under intense scrutiny, since everyone has heard heard similar-sounding things before from horrible people. If I'm not extraordinarily considerate about those things, I'm either an idiot, or I'm deliberately causing trouble. Anyone can see that, right?
Some people feel that way about Damore's arguments. They feel the content is inherently hurtful, such that starting an "even-keeled, rational-sounding debate" about it is inherently rude, at least without doing a lot of work to acknowledge the feelings context. And then obviously lots of other people feel differently. That's a big disagreement, and you don't have to be an insane person to be on either side of it.
Aren't these consistent? They're both just a large corporation censoring things it doesn't like.
The cost of firing the dev was whatever he could claim in a wrongful termination suit. Which is, what, millions of dollars? The benefit of firing him is that you appease the devs of the future who demand that their company take a stand on divisive issues.
The opportunity cost of not getting in on the Chinese market by being complicit in human rights abuses is in the billions, and possibly some direct costs if you generate badwill (so, let's add the cost of keeping up a farce for the employees just to be thorough, which is probably in the millions). As long as you keep everyone in the dark about what you're doing you can reap the benefits.
The opportunity cost of not getting in on the Chinese market by being complicit in human rights abuses is in the billions, and possibly some direct costs if you generate badwill (so, let's add the cost of keeping up a farce for the employees just to be thorough, which is probably in the millions). As long as you keep everyone in the dark about what you're doing you can reap the benefits.
Opp cost could be even higher. If a Chinese company builds the next great (censored) search engine, they could turn around and launch an uncensored version in the US, challenging Google's monopoly on de-listing 'hate speech' in search. Would be ironic, but only as ironic as Google launching a search engine in China.
> they could turn around and launch an uncensored version in the US
It is far more likely for such a competitor to turn around and launch a censored version in the US, just changing the censorship criteria. Can you imagine the impact of a partnership between the Murdoch empire and a search engine with ideological censorship built-in?
It is far more likely for such a competitor to turn around and launch a censored version in the US, just changing the censorship criteria. Can you imagine the impact of a partnership between the Murdoch empire and a search engine with ideological censorship built-in?
It's poor justification for evil that someone else might do it.
The cost of firing Damore was much, much higher than that.
It sent a message to the entire world that Google is staffed by extremists who systematically cannot be trusted to provide unbiased services or search results for anything involving women or feminism. It caught the attention of conservative politicians. It killed dead the idea that Google is run by logical, data driven people (as Damore's memo was basically a big pile of data and studies), and judging from what my friends who still work there think, it created huge cynicism in the developer workforce too. It very much did not "appease the devs" unless you are naive enough to believe that Damore is some outlier in disliking diversity programmes in tech firms.
It sent a message to the entire world that Google is staffed by extremists who systematically cannot be trusted to provide unbiased services or search results for anything involving women or feminism. It caught the attention of conservative politicians. It killed dead the idea that Google is run by logical, data driven people (as Damore's memo was basically a big pile of data and studies), and judging from what my friends who still work there think, it created huge cynicism in the developer workforce too. It very much did not "appease the devs" unless you are naive enough to believe that Damore is some outlier in disliking diversity programmes in tech firms.
If the denominator you are looking at is morality, then those actions are at odds.
But as others have said, the common denominators are profit, social credits, employee demands (only a few people resigned b/c of the china initiative), suppression of individual opinions and elevation of collective opinions, corporate leadership, corporate power, innovation and culture that leads to innovation, etc.
Anyone else care to identify other parallels between these two actions?
But as others have said, the common denominators are profit, social credits, employee demands (only a few people resigned b/c of the china initiative), suppression of individual opinions and elevation of collective opinions, corporate leadership, corporate power, innovation and culture that leads to innovation, etc.
Anyone else care to identify other parallels between these two actions?
Re [2]: https://paraditedc.com/2018/09/30/pdc-2-social-credit-system...
Disclaimer: I wrote the post.
Disclaimer: I wrote the post.
Damore's memo had asides about cultural marxism and claimed that the expected opposition to his post would prove that he was right about political correctness. Although he cited research, he made conclusions based on that research that were not derived from the evidence.
Damore might have considered it an "honest" discussion from his perspective, but there was no chance that it was actually an even handed analysis. The memo was poisoned by his words from the start.
Damore might have considered it an "honest" discussion from his perspective, but there was no chance that it was actually an even handed analysis. The memo was poisoned by his words from the start.
Which conclusions, exactly?
He claimed that writing the memo would put his career at risk because left wing opponents would attempt to purge him. In fact the memo wasn't even primarily about gender, it was about anti-conservative bias at Google. This claim was proven entirely correct by what happened next.
The reason he used the phrase "cultural Marxists" is because Marxists have historically relied heavily on purging institutions or ideological opponents, suppression of speech, insistence on conformity and relentless lying about people they dislike. Given that all these things have happened to Damore it appears to be an apt analogy.
He claimed that writing the memo would put his career at risk because left wing opponents would attempt to purge him. In fact the memo wasn't even primarily about gender, it was about anti-conservative bias at Google. This claim was proven entirely correct by what happened next.
The reason he used the phrase "cultural Marxists" is because Marxists have historically relied heavily on purging institutions or ideological opponents, suppression of speech, insistence on conformity and relentless lying about people they dislike. Given that all these things have happened to Damore it appears to be an apt analogy.
I completely agree with that criticism, but that's still not grounds for just firing him and for certain parts of the media branding him a misogynist.
They're neoliberals. It makes perfect sense. They're liberal on social issues, conservative on econ/foreign policy issues. Examining their actions through this lens makes everything clear.
To give an example outside technology, think of prisons - largely staffed by and filled with men.
A democratic socialist or a libertarian would want to close prisons.
A neoliberal wants the prison to hire more female guards.
To give an example outside technology, think of prisons - largely staffed by and filled with men.
A democratic socialist or a libertarian would want to close prisons.
A neoliberal wants the prison to hire more female guards.
Isn't the simpler explanation that they want to make as much money as possible? Firing Damore saves their reputation and having a good reputation is key to making money. Expanding into China opens up huge opportunities for making money.
>Isn't the simpler explanation that they want to make as much money as possible?
Yes, as I said, they're neoliberals ;)
Yes, as I said, they're neoliberals ;)
I want to agree with this, but social progressivism isn't associated with neoliberalism in my mind. I thought neoliberals were socially classical liberals (freedom of spsech/markets/association/etc)? I always thought of the predominant startup politics to be a crony capitalism/social progressivism mashup.
Either way, I laughed.
Either way, I laughed.
>I want to agree with this, but social progressivism isn't associated with neoliberalism in my mind. I thought neoliberals were socially classical liberals (freedom of spsech/markets/association/etc)?
I think it depends how you define social progressivism. They buy into basic tenets - for example, gay marriage. Basically, progressive when displayed alongside a far right party.
I think it depends how you define social progressivism. They buy into basic tenets - for example, gay marriage. Basically, progressive when displayed alongside a far right party.
By social progressivism I meant the affirmative action reference you made. As far as I was aware gay marriage is pretty centrist these days.
the 'liberal' in neoliberal is not the same 'liberal' used in typical current US parlance. that is to say, it's more right-libertarian vs 'progressive'. neoliberal isn't a label that says all that much about social issues, generally.
> A neoliberal wants the prison to hire more female guards.
afaik, a neoliberal wants the prison to be able to hire whoever it wants without meddling regulations causing inefficiency and putting more strain on the hiring process.
> A neoliberal wants the prison to hire more female guards.
afaik, a neoliberal wants the prison to be able to hire whoever it wants without meddling regulations causing inefficiency and putting more strain on the hiring process.
> It is an odd thing that a company can on the one hand become known as the one firing an engineer who tried to open an honest discussion on a hot subject like 'gender discrimination' because that engineer was deemed to lack a moral compass
It wasn't an open honest discussion.
He wrote some memo and it was pass around the Google until some people found out and got offended.
If he wanted an honest discussion he shouldn't be passing notes around like it's highschool. The memo apparently ended up being pass by more and more people. That's not how you approach this or many topics that are sensitive. I think his lack of common sense and clarity screwed him over really.
This is my understanding base on this article:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzbm4a/employees-...
Gizmodo have the full letter:
https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...
This is before we even approach this sensitive topic, regardless how anybody feel about it, he have already messed it up from the get go.
It wasn't an open honest discussion.
He wrote some memo and it was pass around the Google until some people found out and got offended.
If he wanted an honest discussion he shouldn't be passing notes around like it's highschool. The memo apparently ended up being pass by more and more people. That's not how you approach this or many topics that are sensitive. I think his lack of common sense and clarity screwed him over really.
This is my understanding base on this article:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzbm4a/employees-...
Gizmodo have the full letter:
https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...
This is before we even approach this sensitive topic, regardless how anybody feel about it, he have already messed it up from the get go.
He didn't pass around a memo like a highschool student, he posted it on an internal message board that was created as a place for employees to write about controversial topics.
Do you have a source for that?
Because I've sourced my stuffs and showed how I base my discussion and form my thoughts on my subject with those sources. If I am wrong I would like to learn from it. Otherwise just posting this means I have to take your word for it without any evidence and I don't do that.
Because I've sourced my stuffs and showed how I base my discussion and form my thoughts on my subject with those sources. If I am wrong I would like to learn from it. Otherwise just posting this means I have to take your word for it without any evidence and I don't do that.
You read one article about it, and now you're demanding that he feed you links? You're on the Internet. Google is the topic of discussion. If you cared about the truth as much as you claim, you would do your own homework and seek out your own sources. I guess you really are a digital zombie.
>If he wanted an honest discussion he shouldn't be passing notes around like it's highschool. The memo apparently ended up being pass by more and more people. That's not how you approach this or many topics that are sensitive.
You are making the perfect the enemy of the good here. Your idea of "honest discussion" and claim that how not to approach topics that are sensitive is completely subjective. You are trying to silence his voice (just like google is silencing many chinese voices). You dont make the rules about how someone gets to speak.
I dont think he was productive in his desires but I do believe that he was candid , genuine and I would never tell someone they dont get to epxress their honest thoughts.
Think of the past decades with gay rights , trans rights and you want to tell someone they cant express their thoughts and need to keep their ideas in the closet. Is bigotry from the LGBTQ crowd allowed but we cant be bigoted against them? This double standard keeps us all back from making a truly free society. It seems google and and from your argument that this freedom is subjected and carefully tailored from elite that designate what voices should be heard and silenced.
You are making the perfect the enemy of the good here. Your idea of "honest discussion" and claim that how not to approach topics that are sensitive is completely subjective. You are trying to silence his voice (just like google is silencing many chinese voices). You dont make the rules about how someone gets to speak.
I dont think he was productive in his desires but I do believe that he was candid , genuine and I would never tell someone they dont get to epxress their honest thoughts.
Think of the past decades with gay rights , trans rights and you want to tell someone they cant express their thoughts and need to keep their ideas in the closet. Is bigotry from the LGBTQ crowd allowed but we cant be bigoted against them? This double standard keeps us all back from making a truly free society. It seems google and and from your argument that this freedom is subjected and carefully tailored from elite that designate what voices should be heard and silenced.
> You dont make the rules about how someone gets to speak.
I don't have to make any rules. I'm saying how he did it got him fired. If you think how he did it is correct go ahead and do it in all of those tech companies. You think you won't be risking getting fire doing the way he did it?
Whether you like it or not. Just like his memo trying to be slapping hard truth down. I'll give this unpopular opinion down. There is always rules on how to sell your idea and say things especially sensitive matter. If you're going to go blunt about it, don't get mad if you're going to get fire. Actions have consequences. He could have gone about it many ways and if you think his ways is the best go ahead and do it at your company with his memo. I wouldn't be surprise you get fire.
Rules? Ha. I just have to point to what happened to him. He got fire cause his way got him fire. Rules? You think this idealist thought of yours work with people? Try managing people with many different ideas and being blunt all the time.
You're the same as the people that didn't like his memo. You can't handle the blunt truth and got angry.
Also here's a thought experiment. Why don't you use your real name instead of a username handler and post the same thoughts online.
I'd like to see if you act the same way with your real name as a username.
I don't have to make any rules. I'm saying how he did it got him fired. If you think how he did it is correct go ahead and do it in all of those tech companies. You think you won't be risking getting fire doing the way he did it?
Whether you like it or not. Just like his memo trying to be slapping hard truth down. I'll give this unpopular opinion down. There is always rules on how to sell your idea and say things especially sensitive matter. If you're going to go blunt about it, don't get mad if you're going to get fire. Actions have consequences. He could have gone about it many ways and if you think his ways is the best go ahead and do it at your company with his memo. I wouldn't be surprise you get fire.
Rules? Ha. I just have to point to what happened to him. He got fire cause his way got him fire. Rules? You think this idealist thought of yours work with people? Try managing people with many different ideas and being blunt all the time.
You're the same as the people that didn't like his memo. You can't handle the blunt truth and got angry.
Also here's a thought experiment. Why don't you use your real name instead of a username handler and post the same thoughts online.
I'd like to see if you act the same way with your real name as a username.
"Also here's a thought experiment. Why don't you use your real name instead of a username handler and post the same thoughts online." --digitalzombie, Hacker News, 2018
This is some top-tier trolling, right here. Thanks for the laugh.
This is some top-tier trolling, right here. Thanks for the laugh.
How else is he supposed to discuss it? Every single time that topic gets brought up in any medium, it gets immediately shut down and disregarded. It's always "This isn't the place to discuss this" or "This isn't the time to discuss this". The exact same thing that happened to the CERN scientist a few weeks ago. He brings up some valid points on gender but since he dared to speak his mind, he was ousted because some people were offended by it. I don't blame him one bit for doing it how he did, it certainly had a drastic effect once people got their hands on it.
> How else is he supposed to discuss it?
Most Google employee that didn't like the China or Pentagon collab protest by leaving.
His memo from the get go divided people into groups. Is that really how to sell an idea? So the people reading this either going to like it or not. It made it so easy for the reader to fall into a group because it did it for them. Is being blunt a good thing at all? The things he said about women, whether or not I agree with it, being blunt about it is such a bad way of presenting his idea. Bringing up negative stuff over and over instead of positive is not a good way about trying to convince people to your side. You can just focus on whatever strength/positive your solution on your side and address little to none of the other side negative. There are books out there for persuasion; it's not some evil technique, it teaches you how not to come across as a social lunatic when talking about sensitive subject.
If you don't agree with it's fine because for me, it's not a mole hill worth dying for.
Most Google employee that didn't like the China or Pentagon collab protest by leaving.
His memo from the get go divided people into groups. Is that really how to sell an idea? So the people reading this either going to like it or not. It made it so easy for the reader to fall into a group because it did it for them. Is being blunt a good thing at all? The things he said about women, whether or not I agree with it, being blunt about it is such a bad way of presenting his idea. Bringing up negative stuff over and over instead of positive is not a good way about trying to convince people to your side. You can just focus on whatever strength/positive your solution on your side and address little to none of the other side negative. There are books out there for persuasion; it's not some evil technique, it teaches you how not to come across as a social lunatic when talking about sensitive subject.
If you don't agree with it's fine because for me, it's not a mole hill worth dying for.
9/ For many people there is little difference between what is legal and what is moral. This mindset is especially dangerous when it is held by people in power, such as Google's executives. The mindset is: if it's a legal requirement to censor, then we should do it.
Except when standing on a moral pedestal does not hurt your bottom line. Then apparently it's ok to dictate what is moral and what is not, what is good and what is evil and use your power to force your agenda. It's not google's (or any company's) version of morality that gets me, it's always the hypocrisy
Except when standing on a moral pedestal does not hurt your bottom line. Then apparently it's ok to dictate what is moral and what is not, what is good and what is evil and use your power to force your agenda. It's not google's (or any company's) version of morality that gets me, it's always the hypocrisy
The free market does have a tendency of weeding out those companies that act morally beyond legality, because less moral competitors can outcompete them. So as a survival bias, less moral companies are just more likely to be left standing. Likewise, morality beyond legality is much more likely if it doesn’t yield any ground to competitors (ie effect the bottom line), so what you see as hypocrisy might again just be survival bias in a free market.
Don't know why you single out free markets there. A lack of scruples can be advantageous in economically closed environments as well.
Survival bias applies to a lot of situations. For example, in a system where corruption is endemic, non-corrupt officials won’t get promoted (because they have no dirt higher ups can use against them and/or don’t bribe the right people), leaving only corrupt officials. Do non-corrupt officials exist? Yes, but they are not likely to survive to he noticed.
That's true in competitive markets, but in tech, winner-takes-all happens more often than not, and it affords the winner a lot of freedom.
True, survival bias only applies to competitive markets. Google still has leeway to leave China on the table without going out of business, especially since Chinese tech companies remain isolated from the rest of the world.
albelfio(1)
Under oligopoly, the FAANG companies are kings. The could:
- create bilateral trade agreements that promote ethical standards (instead of finding ways around them)
- lobby for more ethical laws globally (instead of lobbying for maximum legal freedom)
- create bilateral trade agreements that promote ethical standards (instead of finding ways around them)
- lobby for more ethical laws globally (instead of lobbying for maximum legal freedom)
As job governmental organizations, they have little influence in this. Sure they could lobby, but the voters and government branches need to be on board with it also.
Also, people in positions of potential power to steer a company back on the right course leave in protest at the most cruicial moments, opening a spot at the wheel for a yes-person.
> Likewise, morality beyond legality is much more likely if it doesn’t yield any ground to competitors
Then, why do it at all?
You want to tell the world what is right and wrong, fine, do it as an individual, write a book, found a religion or something. Enforcing your moral values inside the company and even worse, using the company's power to force them to the world - only to abandon them when it hurts profits - is perverse IMO.
Then, why do it at all?
You want to tell the world what is right and wrong, fine, do it as an individual, write a book, found a religion or something. Enforcing your moral values inside the company and even worse, using the company's power to force them to the world - only to abandon them when it hurts profits - is perverse IMO.
> Enforcing your moral values inside the company and even worse, using the company's power to force them to the world - only to abandon them when it hurts profits - is perverse IMO.
The same could be said about executives and their lack of moral values. Except the C-level actually wields the power to control the company.
The same could be said about executives and their lack of moral values. Except the C-level actually wields the power to control the company.
I see this argument being used a lot now.
"It's okay to censor Alex Jones because it's done by a private industry".
"Presumption of innocence doesn't apply to Judge Kav because this is a 'job interview'".
I feel what's lacking here is core principles.
"It's okay to censor Alex Jones because it's done by a private industry".
"Presumption of innocence doesn't apply to Judge Kav because this is a 'job interview'".
I feel what's lacking here is core principles.
Honest question: Should a company like google take the lesser evil route and still provide neutered service simply because target audience is huge? Google could still bring a lot of good to the people. Sure it doesn't exactly subscribe to the Western ideals, but is distancing from China throwing baby out with the bathwater?
It might be a slippery slope. Once you are in there, what's to say lord vader doesn't start altering the deal? "I'm gonna need you to put up these propaganda ads on top of yours."
What makes you think that the technology wouldn't be applied to anyone else's search results? Once developed, Google will face intense pressure to apply this technology to other purposes and markets as well.
>Google could still bring a lot of good to the people.
Such as...?
Such as...?
Such as the 99.9% of human knowledge that isn't politically objectionable to the CCP?
>Such as the 99.9% of human knowledge that isn't politically objectionable to the CCP?
So without Google the chinese people can't access the internet? Or you imply that Google is the only search engine that can find things?
Do Chinese people need Google or Google needs the Chinese people?
So without Google the chinese people can't access the internet? Or you imply that Google is the only search engine that can find things?
Do Chinese people need Google or Google needs the Chinese people?
...and implicitly consecrating the non-existence of the 0.1%? This is pretty much the problem.
Depends on who you're worrying about.
If you're worrying about Chinese people, you're improving their access.
If you're worrying about your own moral purity, I suppose you'll have to balance that against above mentioned access.
If you want, you can find some people who live in China and ask them how much Google's "consecration" moves the needle for them.
If you're worrying about Chinese people, you're improving their access.
If you're worrying about your own moral purity, I suppose you'll have to balance that against above mentioned access.
If you want, you can find some people who live in China and ask them how much Google's "consecration" moves the needle for them.
Well, if anything, this just makes discrete a soft type of censorship which is algorithmically unavoidable and already widespread in non "censored" countries. We're already in a post-truth world, so why not a post-truth internet?
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but "uncensored Google" isn't on the table here. Unfortunately.
It's "Google minus political topics" vs "no Google whatsoever".
If you enable more connectivity, however imperfect, you're improving things and you're enabling contact between cultures. Maybe that even enables more political information via side channels. It's a slam dunk net positive compared to not engaging at all.
It's "Google minus political topics" vs "no Google whatsoever".
If you enable more connectivity, however imperfect, you're improving things and you're enabling contact between cultures. Maybe that even enables more political information via side channels. It's a slam dunk net positive compared to not engaging at all.
> It's a slam dunk net positive compared to not engaging at all.
I appreciate your passion here but I'm going to resist my urge to offer overly definitive statements in the other direction for the sake of further argument. But no, it is not a slam dunk IMHO.
I appreciate your passion here but I'm going to resist my urge to offer overly definitive statements in the other direction for the sake of further argument. But no, it is not a slam dunk IMHO.
Imagine if you were to live in a country where government dictates the nature of information you can access. A foreign service provider happily complies with that. Nice guy, I seriously want to get to know them. Completely irrelevant, I know.
You cannot even quantify the information people would get additionally on market deployment. Because the assumption is pretty baseless to begin with. Therefore I have nothing to balance against besides Google's bottom line.
Believing alternative explanations is heavily naive.
On the contrary: If said bottom line is established, you can be very sure Google would be very open for suggestions by the respective government. Logically.
You cannot even quantify the information people would get additionally on market deployment. Because the assumption is pretty baseless to begin with. Therefore I have nothing to balance against besides Google's bottom line.
Believing alternative explanations is heavily naive.
On the contrary: If said bottom line is established, you can be very sure Google would be very open for suggestions by the respective government. Logically.
"Imagine if" is actually the whole problem.
Nobody wants to listen to people who've actually lived in China.
Nobody wants to listen to people who've actually lived in China.
I think that's a bit of a stretch. "Companies have to comply with the law, so they're consecrating it".
What else? People living in the US are consecrating the politics of Donald Trump?
To quote Tim Cook: Your choice is: do you participate, or do you stand on the sideline and yell at how things should be, [...] And my own view very strongly is you show up and you participate, you get in the arena because nothing ever changes from the sideline.
What else? People living in the US are consecrating the politics of Donald Trump?
To quote Tim Cook: Your choice is: do you participate, or do you stand on the sideline and yell at how things should be, [...] And my own view very strongly is you show up and you participate, you get in the arena because nothing ever changes from the sideline.
Which is already provided by extremely successful and well established companies like Baidu. Google would be bringing nothing new except perhaps a mechanism to report the phone numbers attached to "illegal" searches for possible prosecution.
Two questions:
1) You honestly believe Google couldn't create better connections between the Chinese internet and the Anglo internet?
2) Could you give me a link to English Baidu?
Oh, sorry, bonus question:
3) Do you consider this fragmentation to be a positive?
1) You honestly believe Google couldn't create better connections between the Chinese internet and the Anglo internet?
2) Could you give me a link to English Baidu?
Oh, sorry, bonus question:
3) Do you consider this fragmentation to be a positive?
you mean knowledge like blocking wikipedia and any major news website?
English Wikipedia isn't blocked in China.
[deleted]
Providing neutered service is not the lesser evil.
Censoring search results creates a false impression about the world. People assume that if google doesn't return results on something, that thing doesn't exist.
Imagine you are a professor of history. You are allowed to travel to china, give a tour, where people will ask you questions about history, most of which you'll be allowed to answer, however if someone asks you about the Tiananmen Massacre, you'll have to say that you never heard of such a thing. Would you travel to china under these conditions?
Censoring search results creates a false impression about the world. People assume that if google doesn't return results on something, that thing doesn't exist.
Imagine you are a professor of history. You are allowed to travel to china, give a tour, where people will ask you questions about history, most of which you'll be allowed to answer, however if someone asks you about the Tiananmen Massacre, you'll have to say that you never heard of such a thing. Would you travel to china under these conditions?
I don't get Google. The cost of switching to competitor's products are near-zero, Google's public image is its most valuable asset. Is the Chinese search market - and other evil products - really worth the risk?
I have switched to DDGG 3 weeks ago and I am seriously testing Firefox.
I have switched to DDGG 3 weeks ago and I am seriously testing Firefox.
The real problem with Google's china target is that China's internet is full of garbage. Public webpages values are near-zero because of the censorship. Nobody is willing to post publicly. The search results will be Garbage In Garbage Out. People are turning into invite-only "circles" like Wechat or Zhihu, where the real discussions happen and content generates. These sites are mostly non-indexable mobile apps and with billions of users.
It's an dead end for Google and any other search engine business. Even China's domestic search engine Baidu is dead long ago and pivoted to AI strategy
It's an dead end for Google and any other search engine business. Even China's domestic search engine Baidu is dead long ago and pivoted to AI strategy
The cost of switching from Google was low when Search was their only product. They have their hooks a lot deeeper in users these days. Android, Gmail, Docs, and others are harder to switch away from.
It's more pervasive than that, they have hooks in the entire contemporary Internet ecosystem (DoubleClick, Google Analytics, etc.) So they don't care if you never touch a Google-branded site, they can collect and sell data on you. And Mozilla is largely funded by Google.
why do people write whole blogposts on twitter?
You go where your customers are, or audience iin this case
Reaching a large audience can be useful, but it might not be worth the cost of using an established medium. From the forward - which was probably written by Marshall McLuhan - to Edmund Snow Carpenter's book "They became what they beheld":
> If you address yourself to an audience, you accept at the outset the basic premises that unite the audience. You put on the audience, repeating cliches familiar to it.
> Utilizing existing channels can wipe out a statement. There is a widely accepted misconception that media merely serve as neutral packages for the dissemination of raw facts. Photographers once thought that by getting their photographs published in Life, they wo9uld thereby reach large audiences. Gradually they discovered that the only message that came through was Life magazine itself and that their pictures had become but bits & pieces of that message. Unwittingly they contributed to a message far removed from the one they intended.
Twitter may actually be a useful tool for reaching large audiences for some messages, but "the medium is the message" and using Twitter as your medium clearly involves diluting your message with the "Twitter style".
> If you address yourself to an audience, you accept at the outset the basic premises that unite the audience. You put on the audience, repeating cliches familiar to it.
> Utilizing existing channels can wipe out a statement. There is a widely accepted misconception that media merely serve as neutral packages for the dissemination of raw facts. Photographers once thought that by getting their photographs published in Life, they wo9uld thereby reach large audiences. Gradually they discovered that the only message that came through was Life magazine itself and that their pictures had become but bits & pieces of that message. Unwittingly they contributed to a message far removed from the one they intended.
Twitter may actually be a useful tool for reaching large audiences for some messages, but "the medium is the message" and using Twitter as your medium clearly involves diluting your message with the "Twitter style".
The format is kinda a cross between Twitter and Medium, so in my household it is (perhaps unfairly) named Tedium.
I bet Tedium is one of those names that has yet to be taken for a social media startup.
Tedium is actually the name of a fairly popular mailing list [0] about weird backstories to phenomena in everyday life.
[0]: https://tedium.co/
[0]: https://tedium.co/
Maybe because they don't have a blog and/or all their followers are on twitter?
There are many Google mirror sites, most of which are blocked in China. If the Chinese government decides to work with some of the mirror sites to deliver Google search results in China, on the condition that the mirror sites must censor the search results, what would happen? I could think of three reactions from Google:
1. Block those mirror sites from accessing Google search results, but this may be technically difficult.
2. Do nothing. Effectively a censored Google becomes available in China but people can hardly blame google for not blocking the mirror sites.
3. Work with the mirror sites (e.g. require them to display Google ads). This is pretty much dragonfly.
It seems that Dragonfly doesn't really change anything about China's censorship after all?
1. Block those mirror sites from accessing Google search results, but this may be technically difficult.
2. Do nothing. Effectively a censored Google becomes available in China but people can hardly blame google for not blocking the mirror sites.
3. Work with the mirror sites (e.g. require them to display Google ads). This is pretty much dragonfly.
It seems that Dragonfly doesn't really change anything about China's censorship after all?
4. Feed the mirror sites mis-leading information that causes them to be less effective than Baidu and/or works past their filter and informs Chinese users.
How? Google may accidentally feed misleading information to some real users, and this may cause a huge backfire like what happened to FB.
If Dragonfly should be launched yet fail to fly, whether for political or for business reasons, Google may perhaps fall back on Sergey Brin.
Just as Twitter has cycled through its founders as CEO, after their serious mis-steps and failed initiatives.
Just as Twitter has cycled through its founders as CEO, after their serious mis-steps and failed initiatives.
> As I previously tweeted, Sergey Brin is a notable exception to this temptation, and he is reported to be the reason that Google left China in 2010
Dear digital spin doctors of HN,
What are the likely online tactics that will be used to neutralize Brin's on-the-record statements and previous action regarding China?
It must be a drag to practice those dark arts of digital public manipulation in secret all the time. So c'mon, make some public predictions with a throwaway and let us follow along at home!
Edit: wording
Dear digital spin doctors of HN,
What are the likely online tactics that will be used to neutralize Brin's on-the-record statements and previous action regarding China?
It must be a drag to practice those dark arts of digital public manipulation in secret all the time. So c'mon, make some public predictions with a throwaway and let us follow along at home!
Edit: wording
On the other note: Google's new 'research centre' in Beijing looks to be much more than it should be, much more like a smallish campus.
The person posting this left Google in 2007 [1]. The screenshot indicates the emails took place in February 2016 and October 2018 [2]. The conversation seems focused around events before 2008 (e.g. the selection of holding the Olympic games in Beijing). (Other people pointed it out as well [3]).
Were the dates in the emails faked? What's going on?
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/vijayboyapati
[2] https://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/1051725529512964096
[3] https://twitter.com/wiretapped/status/1051739819121016832
Were the dates in the emails faked? What's going on?
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/vijayboyapati
[2] https://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/1051725529512964096
[3] https://twitter.com/wiretapped/status/1051739819121016832
Time to flood this https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google%20tell%20me%20h...
> because in the digital era, the suppression of information acessibilty is incompatible with free-market productivity
LOL. This video is not available in your country.
China is just a giant corp intranet with a huge ass firewall.
LOL. This video is not available in your country.
China is just a giant corp intranet with a huge ass firewall.
Google is a creatively and morally bankrupt company. The original spark is long gone and it’s just another soul-less big company now.
What happens to Google in 10 years if they don't move into the China market? Can Google survive without moving into China? Will some upstart move in there and dominate the market? Will the stock market punish Google for not moving into China?
Why is it OK to have all our devices, etc. manufactured in China, but it's not OK for Google to offer services there?
Why is it OK to have all our devices, etc. manufactured in China, but it's not OK for Google to offer services there?
> Why is it OK to have all our devices, etc. manufactured in China, but it's not OK for Google to offer services there?
This is a great angle. I have no idea, why there is such a huge disparity there, but I have three possible explanations:
1. People do not understand supply chain management (myself included). There is nothing inherently evil about employing people in a foreign country, and not many people are aware that cost of production is lower in China because of (sometimes) horrible working conditions.
2. Google branded itself on "Don't be evil". More or less everyone in western countries would agree that facilitating censorship on a massive scale for the benefit of government officials is "bad".
3. Hypocrisy. Our way of life depends on low wage labour (read: explotiation of the poor) in foreign countries. Our morals follow our wallet.
This is a great angle. I have no idea, why there is such a huge disparity there, but I have three possible explanations:
1. People do not understand supply chain management (myself included). There is nothing inherently evil about employing people in a foreign country, and not many people are aware that cost of production is lower in China because of (sometimes) horrible working conditions.
2. Google branded itself on "Don't be evil". More or less everyone in western countries would agree that facilitating censorship on a massive scale for the benefit of government officials is "bad".
3. Hypocrisy. Our way of life depends on low wage labour (read: explotiation of the poor) in foreign countries. Our morals follow our wallet.
4. Global consumerism is built on global labor arbitrage (read: exploitation of the poor). People are somewhat aware it but politicians only care about large companies making big profits.
How is this the fault of government?
Of out 5 countries described as "communist", the US government flattened N. Korea, invaded Vietnam, embargoed Cuba and developed China into one of the biggest world economies and a techno-dictatorship.
Clearly the US government has the power to decide the destiny of less powerful countries.
Compared to that, setting up trade agreements with China to ensure human rights, worker safety, environment protection and so on is pretty doable.
Clearly the US government has the power to decide the destiny of less powerful countries.
Compared to that, setting up trade agreements with China to ensure human rights, worker safety, environment protection and so on is pretty doable.
> Our way of life depends on low wage labour (read: exploitation of the poor) in foreign countries
In some sense this is true, but manufacturing in China is not just about low wage labour.
The lowest minimum wage in China is 12 RMB/hour. In the US the federal minimum wage is 7.25 USD/hour. Now, 12 RMB ≈ 1.75 USD, but considering purchasing power parity (1), 12 RMB * 3.506 ≈ 6 USD.
The average factory worker wage in China is considerably higher than the minimum wage. In fact it is higher than in some eastern European countries.
Of course the above doesn't tell the whole picture as we haven't looked at for example work and environmental safety. But the lower cost of manufacturing in China can only partly be attributed to lower wages. It also an effect of their industrial network clusters, supply of raw materials, and export subsidies.
Adding to that, manufacturing in China is not just about cost, it is also about the immense scale of their manufacturing capabilities. If you need to churn out half a million iPhone X per day, where else can you get that capability?
(1) Using 2017 value for China from https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p...
In some sense this is true, but manufacturing in China is not just about low wage labour.
The lowest minimum wage in China is 12 RMB/hour. In the US the federal minimum wage is 7.25 USD/hour. Now, 12 RMB ≈ 1.75 USD, but considering purchasing power parity (1), 12 RMB * 3.506 ≈ 6 USD.
The average factory worker wage in China is considerably higher than the minimum wage. In fact it is higher than in some eastern European countries.
Of course the above doesn't tell the whole picture as we haven't looked at for example work and environmental safety. But the lower cost of manufacturing in China can only partly be attributed to lower wages. It also an effect of their industrial network clusters, supply of raw materials, and export subsidies.
Adding to that, manufacturing in China is not just about cost, it is also about the immense scale of their manufacturing capabilities. If you need to churn out half a million iPhone X per day, where else can you get that capability?
(1) Using 2017 value for China from https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p...
> Why is it OK to have all our devices, etc. manufactured in China, but it's not OK for Google to offer services there?
That might not be OK either. People are questioning the wisdom of having "all our devices, etc. manufactured in China."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/11/if-the-u-s-doesnt-contr...
That might not be OK either. People are questioning the wisdom of having "all our devices, etc. manufactured in China."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/11/if-the-u-s-doesnt-contr...
There is no reason to take survival as the only metric here, no need to oversimplify the problem.
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it" - Alan Kay
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it" - Alan Kay
Why wouldn't Google survive without China?
> Why is it OK to have all our devices, etc. manufactured in China, but it's not OK for Google to offer services there?
Because manufacturing our devices there does not directly enable their oppressive practices, such as political censorship. But offering services there does, since China demands that all such services come with censorship tools built-in, and (per this guy's Twitter), actually wants the companies to take down content on demand.
TL;DR: it's the difference between doing business with a known criminal, and assisting them in commission of their crimes.
> Why is it OK to have all our devices, etc. manufactured in China, but it's not OK for Google to offer services there?
Because manufacturing our devices there does not directly enable their oppressive practices, such as political censorship. But offering services there does, since China demands that all such services come with censorship tools built-in, and (per this guy's Twitter), actually wants the companies to take down content on demand.
TL;DR: it's the difference between doing business with a known criminal, and assisting them in commission of their crimes.
One can readily argue that doing business with a criminal deprives law-abiding (or moral) actors of revenue with which to gain an economy of scale.
Sure. I'm not saying that it's good to do that. But I don't think anyone would argue that it's far worse to actively and directly enable the criminal.
> Because manufacturing our devices there does not directly enable their oppressive practices, such as political censorship.
So, it's OK to give them trillions of dollars in business because we benefit even though they're going to use those trillions to further their agenda? Directly or indirectly, the results are the same.
So, it's OK to give them trillions of dollars in business because we benefit even though they're going to use those trillions to further their agenda? Directly or indirectly, the results are the same.
So china wanted google news and google search censored. Honestly, what's the big deal?
Google news and google search is also censored in the US, Europe, Middle East and everywhere.
Why is it that so many vocal ex-employees are against censorship in china, but demand censorship in the US?
I'm against censorship everywhere but the self-righteousness of these people when it comes to china is getting to be unbearable.
These ex-employees are saying google has to censor news and search because the internet is "too toxic" and causing too much division. This is precisely what the chinese authorities say to justify censorship.
And with the recent revelations of how politically driven and manipulative google is ( and has been ), I highly doubt the chinese or any country would allow google in without certain restrictions.
Google news and google search is also censored in the US, Europe, Middle East and everywhere.
Why is it that so many vocal ex-employees are against censorship in china, but demand censorship in the US?
I'm against censorship everywhere but the self-righteousness of these people when it comes to china is getting to be unbearable.
These ex-employees are saying google has to censor news and search because the internet is "too toxic" and causing too much division. This is precisely what the chinese authorities say to justify censorship.
And with the recent revelations of how politically driven and manipulative google is ( and has been ), I highly doubt the chinese or any country would allow google in without certain restrictions.
China is doing something different entirely here. Denying facts to keep the population under control, for instance. That is different entirely from what the typical Western country censors: advertising illegal drugs, child porn, hate speech, etc.
https://www.businessinsider.com/words-china-banned-from-sear...
https://www.businessinsider.com/words-china-banned-from-sear...
> Denying facts to keep the population under control, for instance.
This is different from us how?
> That is different entirely from what the typical Western country censors: advertising illegal drugs, child porn, hate speech, etc.
China also censors illegal drugs, child porn, "hate speech", etc.
You are right. China censors for the good of their own citizens and our censors do so for the good of us. Oh wait, that sounds exactly the same.
I love people who conflate "hate speech" with child porn and illegal drugs. Is physics "hate speech" to flat earthers? Should we censor physics? What's next? Hate thought? Should we monitor people's brain for hate thought. Science itself is hate speech to religious people. Should we censor science?
There are lots of facts that people on both sides consider "hate speech". For example, I consider your support of censorship hate speech. Should you be censored?
Just as I said, these people love censorship in the US but hate censorship in china. Makes me wonder who and what is pushing and funding such anti-liberal and anti-western "hate speech" in the US. In all my time on the internet, I haven't come across such openly fascistic and anti-liberal "hate speech" until fairly recently.
This is different from us how?
> That is different entirely from what the typical Western country censors: advertising illegal drugs, child porn, hate speech, etc.
China also censors illegal drugs, child porn, "hate speech", etc.
You are right. China censors for the good of their own citizens and our censors do so for the good of us. Oh wait, that sounds exactly the same.
I love people who conflate "hate speech" with child porn and illegal drugs. Is physics "hate speech" to flat earthers? Should we censor physics? What's next? Hate thought? Should we monitor people's brain for hate thought. Science itself is hate speech to religious people. Should we censor science?
There are lots of facts that people on both sides consider "hate speech". For example, I consider your support of censorship hate speech. Should you be censored?
Just as I said, these people love censorship in the US but hate censorship in china. Makes me wonder who and what is pushing and funding such anti-liberal and anti-western "hate speech" in the US. In all my time on the internet, I haven't come across such openly fascistic and anti-liberal "hate speech" until fairly recently.
> Is physics "hate speech"
If it's somehow an incitement to an immediate illegal action then it may be. Otherwise it's not.
In the US, hate speech isn't like being offended, it's not in the eye of the beholder. It's been covered a number of times by the Supreme Court.
And China is quite different from the US wrt free speech. US courts take a very dim view of restrictions to political free speech. It's quite a stretch to say the same about China. In fact, I'd argue that there are plenty of Western democracies who are less lenient in that regard than the US.
If it's somehow an incitement to an immediate illegal action then it may be. Otherwise it's not.
In the US, hate speech isn't like being offended, it's not in the eye of the beholder. It's been covered a number of times by the Supreme Court.
And China is quite different from the US wrt free speech. US courts take a very dim view of restrictions to political free speech. It's quite a stretch to say the same about China. In fact, I'd argue that there are plenty of Western democracies who are less lenient in that regard than the US.
> If it's somehow an incitement to an immediate illegal action then it may be. Otherwise it's not.
So it's not.
> In the US, hate speech isn't like being offended, it's not in the eye of the beholder. It's been covered a number of times by the Supreme Court.
I know. The point is that these people want hate speech to be illegal like it is in many other western nations. They want more censorship for the US, less in china.
So it's not.
> In the US, hate speech isn't like being offended, it's not in the eye of the beholder. It's been covered a number of times by the Supreme Court.
I know. The point is that these people want hate speech to be illegal like it is in many other western nations. They want more censorship for the US, less in china.
>Why is it that so many vocal ex-employees are against censorship in china, but demand censorship in the US?
When have google employees demanded censorship in the US?
When have google employees demanded censorship in the US?
Youtube frequently boots popular creators- is this not an established fact or do names need to be named?
Aside: I found the final sentence of the article (injected by Threader) interesting. "Enjoy Threader? Tell @jack."
I wonder if Twitter will eventually branch out into more long form content like this.
I wonder if Twitter will eventually branch out into more long form content like this.
Google is clearly evil now. Will anyone do anything about it?
Like what? Will anyone do anything about China? How about the US?
"Will anyone do anything about it" is classic bystander effect by the way - what are you doing about it?
"Will anyone do anything about it" is classic bystander effect by the way - what are you doing about it?
To be fair, HN is probably the biggest single forum of people building alternatives to Google products (aside from internal MS/Apple etc. forums, one presumes).
The real risk of Google entering China, and possibly succeeding, is the a reverse-effect happening with regard to censorship globally. The theory is, by Google operating in China, it will help liberalize and open things up, that may have worked in the Deng Xiaoping era when, but after the hardliners took power, and especially with Xi, things are going in the opposite direction of the "End of History" folks predictions. Economic well being did not bring an appetite for Democracy, it brought an appetite for not "rocking the boat"/"don't mess with a good thing"
By reverse-effect, I mean, let's say Google is hugely successful in China. It proves a censored search engine works and is good business, first of all. So economic arguments about the harm will be delegitimatized. Other states will ask for more censorship, and Google can't reply 'this is too costly or harmful to our business' because China would be an example of how to make it work. So the end result might be that Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, and Indonesia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, etc will all of a sudden be asking for their own forks of Dragonfly. (I just picked those countries at random, with no specific example of censorship in mind)
Secondly, if they become hugely successful in China, it compromises them just like Apple. The revenue stream will become a golden goose and too valuable to risk the anger of the government. So you'll have Google executives having to embarrass themselves like Tim Cook by praising China's "open" internet (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/04...)
Third, Google made one of the few brave moral decisions leaving China. Perhaps you don't believe Brin did it for the reasons claimed, but your belief isn't important, what is important is what many people believe this, especially politically repressed people who need to believe in heroic actions. This undercuts that decision. If the world's most popular company for organizing information not only fails to fight censorship, but actively helps regimes that wants to implement state level censorship, it will be a big loss of a beacon in the constant struggle between censorship and anti-censorship forces. Having the world's largest companies, even if they're only doing it for economic reasons, on the side of anti-censorship is better than having the world's largest companies on the side of censorship (for economic reasons)
And fourth, Google can't change China. The idea that a SV tech company can trigger improvements in the politics and openness of a powerful country like China is quite simply hubris. We're not smart enough to do this, and intelligence isn't even the factor. China's future will be written by its people and internal events.
If they want an uncensored search engine, then one day, the political winds will change, and they will demand it. But until they do so powerfully enough for the current government to change its behavior, the actions of foreign firms won't do anything. I'm not sure we should involve ourselves in this fight other than through NGOs that already fight these things (e.g. Amnesty International) or offering anti-firewall/anti-censorship tools.
There's only one argument for doing business in China as a search engine, and it is a legitimate one, just not a moral one: the shareholder argument.
By reverse-effect, I mean, let's say Google is hugely successful in China. It proves a censored search engine works and is good business, first of all. So economic arguments about the harm will be delegitimatized. Other states will ask for more censorship, and Google can't reply 'this is too costly or harmful to our business' because China would be an example of how to make it work. So the end result might be that Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, and Indonesia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, etc will all of a sudden be asking for their own forks of Dragonfly. (I just picked those countries at random, with no specific example of censorship in mind)
Secondly, if they become hugely successful in China, it compromises them just like Apple. The revenue stream will become a golden goose and too valuable to risk the anger of the government. So you'll have Google executives having to embarrass themselves like Tim Cook by praising China's "open" internet (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/04...)
Third, Google made one of the few brave moral decisions leaving China. Perhaps you don't believe Brin did it for the reasons claimed, but your belief isn't important, what is important is what many people believe this, especially politically repressed people who need to believe in heroic actions. This undercuts that decision. If the world's most popular company for organizing information not only fails to fight censorship, but actively helps regimes that wants to implement state level censorship, it will be a big loss of a beacon in the constant struggle between censorship and anti-censorship forces. Having the world's largest companies, even if they're only doing it for economic reasons, on the side of anti-censorship is better than having the world's largest companies on the side of censorship (for economic reasons)
And fourth, Google can't change China. The idea that a SV tech company can trigger improvements in the politics and openness of a powerful country like China is quite simply hubris. We're not smart enough to do this, and intelligence isn't even the factor. China's future will be written by its people and internal events.
If they want an uncensored search engine, then one day, the political winds will change, and they will demand it. But until they do so powerfully enough for the current government to change its behavior, the actions of foreign firms won't do anything. I'm not sure we should involve ourselves in this fight other than through NGOs that already fight these things (e.g. Amnesty International) or offering anti-firewall/anti-censorship tools.
There's only one argument for doing business in China as a search engine, and it is a legitimate one, just not a moral one: the shareholder argument.
Do we have any valuable resources like this, but from 2018?
The only morality of the global economy is growth.
Not sure about the conditions of employment with Google, but if he has archives of emails long after he's left the company, could a lawsuit be forthcoming?
Is authoritarianism in China getting better or worse? If it's getting better than what it used to be under actual communist rule then perhaps there's still some hope for economic prosperity bringing democracy to China.
Pretty much the only thing westerners can agree on when it comes to China is that authoritarianism has been getting worse in the last five years.
It’s getting worse. Before the recent change to the Politburo succession rules the Party was run on a College of Cardinals basis. There is now clearly a Pope, and an incipient cult of personality. It’s pretty mild and there are as yet no actual believers but the cant people must mouth in order to get ahead politically and at high levels of business has been disseminated. If you feel like speaking out against it there are escalating levels of consequences. If you’re interested Christopher Balding and T. Greer are both good.
baldingsworld.com @BaldingsWorld scholars-stage.blogspot.com @Scholars_Stage
baldingsworld.com @BaldingsWorld scholars-stage.blogspot.com @Scholars_Stage
It could be less authoritarian despite the economic prosperity. Or it could just be complicated.
It's still actual communist rule -- by the Communist Party of China, no less.
It's rule by people who use the brand "communist", but they aren't actually communists in any meaningful sense, not even as in what the word meant to the Soviets. China is very authoritarian, but it is not communist or even socialist. Fascism would be an accurate description, though, as Mussolini himself defined it ("Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.")
> It's rule by people who use the brand "communist", but they aren't actually communists in any meaningful sense, not even as in what the word meant to the Soviets. China is very authoritarian, but it is not communist or even socialist.
What does this even mean? The government and the people who run it are the direct political descendants of Mao and the Communists who overthrew the Chinese government in the '40s. They are Communists. Full stop. If the people who call themselves "Communist" and have run the most populous nation in the world for the last 75 years can't be the very definition of "communist," then words have no meaning.
What does this even mean? The government and the people who run it are the direct political descendants of Mao and the Communists who overthrew the Chinese government in the '40s. They are Communists. Full stop. If the people who call themselves "Communist" and have run the most populous nation in the world for the last 75 years can't be the very definition of "communist," then words have no meaning.
The government and the people who run it are literally jailing actual Mao-worshipping communists right now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/world/asia/china-maoists-...
The reason why China isn't meaningfully communist is because their economy isn't communist, or even socialist, in any meaningful sense. There are a lot of govt-owned companies, yes, but they're run as capitalist enterprises. Again, what this resembles most is fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, just less bloodthirsty. What it does not resemble is the USSR, or China under Mao.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/world/asia/china-maoists-...
The reason why China isn't meaningfully communist is because their economy isn't communist, or even socialist, in any meaningful sense. There are a lot of govt-owned companies, yes, but they're run as capitalist enterprises. Again, what this resembles most is fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, just less bloodthirsty. What it does not resemble is the USSR, or China under Mao.
>If the people who call themselves "Communist"
North Korea confirmed to be a democracy?
North Korea confirmed to be a democracy?
Clearly not. They are ruled by the Workers' Party of Korea, and it is a self-described revolutionary and socialist state.
And since we were originally talking about Chinese communists, it's interesting to note that they have been the chief supporters of North Korea's government.
And since we were originally talking about Chinese communists, it's interesting to note that they have been the chief supporters of North Korea's government.
It's very hard to estimate how large the public sector is. Low-ball estimates would put it at around 30% which is a tad more than most in the socialism-leaning Europe. That is when you only count enterprises that are officially state owned. If you loosen it up 50% or even 60% isn't unreasonable (check out work of Derek Scissors).
The communism vs fascism question is always though. Soviet Russia can easily be described as both communist and strongly fascistic.
The communism vs fascism question is always though. Soviet Russia can easily be described as both communist and strongly fascistic.
Chinese economy is a good example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
To follow up on your quote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Giovanni Gentile
To follow up on your quote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Giovanni Gentile
[flagged]
Google was doing no evil till Sundar Pichai happened.
This is the real world.
Google and the US are better off being present in China that being left out.
Google and the US are better off being present in China that being left out.
Google is better, but I would argue that further giving Google influence in the global internet is a bad thing. We need to curb the influence of single actors. If Google goes into China they will become omnipotent. They will use this to greatly raise the bar of entry into the tech sector. It would become physically impossible for any other players to compete with Google's level of market share on the web.
So while Google might benefit, humanity would suffer.
So while Google might benefit, humanity would suffer.
Why?
From the perspective of Google it is obviously important to be present in the largest market on Earth both commercially and strategically, and not to let its competitors have it all for themselves.
From the perspective of the US (Google is an American company) it is obviously tactically and strategically important to have the best information possible on what is going on in China. This is much, much easier to achieve when American companies are present "on the ground". For example, I am sure that this project gives the US a pretty good insight on what the Chinese government does. It would be much more difficult to ask Tencent how the Chinese system works, wouldn't it?
From the perspective of the US (Google is an American company) it is obviously tactically and strategically important to have the best information possible on what is going on in China. This is much, much easier to achieve when American companies are present "on the ground". For example, I am sure that this project gives the US a pretty good insight on what the Chinese government does. It would be much more difficult to ask Tencent how the Chinese system works, wouldn't it?
Google doesn’t really have world-wide competitors in the Chinese search market. Baidu is basically a large scale healthcare scam, while Bing is struggling
Foreign companies face different rules in China when compared to Chinese ones via selective enforcement of law. They will not be exposed to the same real Chinese system.
Foreign companies face different rules in China when compared to Chinese ones via selective enforcement of law. They will not be exposed to the same real Chinese system.
Google's market share in China is basically 0... But apart from that no competitors, LOL.
From a world wide perspective, google yielding the search market to China has yet to effect them since their competitors operating there are not at all competitive.
Edited my origins comment for clarity.
Edited my origins comment for clarity.
That's the standard short-term vision: Oh this won't affect us this year so we don't need to care...
At this point, it is unlikely that Baidu will ever be competitive outside of China, especially with protectionism that prevents it from actually having to compete with google in any case. Bing has had its chance and hasn’t performed.
Likewise, search is increasingly less relevant as time goes on, so longer term vision likely drifts away from it anyways (which is more likely the real reason why google wants back into China).
Likewise, search is increasingly less relevant as time goes on, so longer term vision likely drifts away from it anyways (which is more likely the real reason why google wants back into China).
Thought experiment: If Google doesn't move in, someone else will eventually fill the vacuum. Who?
Suppose that Chinese-born-and-bred search-engine-and-advertising-company, through virtue of having access to a massive economic resource, succeeds broadly and then enters the western markets. What then?
Not trying to justify any of this, but it's worth discussing.
Suppose that Chinese-born-and-bred search-engine-and-advertising-company, through virtue of having access to a massive economic resource, succeeds broadly and then enters the western markets. What then?
Not trying to justify any of this, but it's worth discussing.
> If Google doesn't move in, someone else will eventually fill the vacuum. Who?
Someone with less skills and expertise, who will hopefully make more mistakes implementing censorship? Or maybe someone with more skin in the game (e.g. locals) who might actually be more motivated to sabotage it?
But, conversely, Google implementing such a thing in China - and justifying it as moral there by these arguments - would also give them skills and expertise to do it US in the future, and a canned excuse as to why it's okay.
> Suppose that Chinese-born-and-bred search-engine-and-advertising-company, through virtue of having access to a massive economic resource, succeeds broadly and then enters the western markets. What then?
Then we engage in protectionism ourselves.
Someone with less skills and expertise, who will hopefully make more mistakes implementing censorship? Or maybe someone with more skin in the game (e.g. locals) who might actually be more motivated to sabotage it?
But, conversely, Google implementing such a thing in China - and justifying it as moral there by these arguments - would also give them skills and expertise to do it US in the future, and a canned excuse as to why it's okay.
> Suppose that Chinese-born-and-bred search-engine-and-advertising-company, through virtue of having access to a massive economic resource, succeeds broadly and then enters the western markets. What then?
Then we engage in protectionism ourselves.
> If Google doesn't move in, someone else will eventually fill the vacuum. Who?
This is eerily reminiscent of arguments that people have used around Project Maven (cloud compute for drone footage). At this point I am starting to wonder if this style of argument has a fundamental weakness. E.g. if immoral act "X" is going to be done by someone, is it logical that the most moral actor "A" must do this? In the limit, this has the most moral actors doing the most evil. In fact, it has the most moral actors being the first to jump in to do evil, before anyone else even gets a chance to. That seems totally backwards.
This is eerily reminiscent of arguments that people have used around Project Maven (cloud compute for drone footage). At this point I am starting to wonder if this style of argument has a fundamental weakness. E.g. if immoral act "X" is going to be done by someone, is it logical that the most moral actor "A" must do this? In the limit, this has the most moral actors doing the most evil. In fact, it has the most moral actors being the first to jump in to do evil, before anyone else even gets a chance to. That seems totally backwards.
There is no vacuum. Existing Chinese companies already provide all of the same services there that Google provides in the rest of the world. For example Baidu is the most heavily used search engine.
Is not competition considered "a good thing"?
money i guess?
An even better option would be to circumvent the great firewall. That helps both American companies and Chinese users.
The CEO is not a founder. He's beholden to the shareholders without any leverage for pushback.
This is not necessarily how things work (source: am a C-suite exec now and was in my previous role too, although not any company nearly as big or important as Google/Alphabet obviously).
Think of shareholders like voters in a not-very-well-functioning democracy. They hold ultimate power, but don't get to vote on things that often and certainly not on every decision. So their power gets exercised on big lumpy things like restructuring the cap table or executive appointments. Big shareholders may well be informed or even consulted about big decisions though, and have informal opportunities to make their general feelings known by meeting senior management. If the shareholders are unhappy they might orchestrate a rebellion and block executive comp or vote on some independent board members or whatever.
The board is like the legislature in a parliamentary democracy. They are accountable to the shareholders because they are appointees, so if the shareholders don't like what they do they can give them the boot and appoint someone else. Likewise they can fire the executives if they need to, and also get a vote about a wider range of issues than the shareholders. They therefore have more direct control than the shareholders, but its still not at a very granular level of detail typically. Or if they are going super granular on one topic they are really zoomed out from everything else (and giving the executives more latitude in those areas). So I have been at board meetings where there is a 100 page board pack and the entire conversation has revolved around a microscopic discussion of one page, with everything else being skipped over.
Then the c-suite are like the executive branch. They deal with the day to day and actually have to get things done. On a daily basis shareholders and the board will generally leave them alone unless things are going poorly (in which case the eye of sauron is on you).
So hopefully it follows from that model that you actually have a lot of leverage as an executive and a lot of latitude to make decisions within a general strategic direction that has been agreed by board and shareholders. Secondly, shareholders are not a uniform blob of faceless avaricious beasts who care only about profit - institutional shareholders will have their respective shareholders and issues like reputational risk etc to consider. As an exec, you can often use credibility you have built up to persuade them of a particular strategic direction and they may or may not give you leeway depending on how much you have delivered in the past etc.
Think of shareholders like voters in a not-very-well-functioning democracy. They hold ultimate power, but don't get to vote on things that often and certainly not on every decision. So their power gets exercised on big lumpy things like restructuring the cap table or executive appointments. Big shareholders may well be informed or even consulted about big decisions though, and have informal opportunities to make their general feelings known by meeting senior management. If the shareholders are unhappy they might orchestrate a rebellion and block executive comp or vote on some independent board members or whatever.
The board is like the legislature in a parliamentary democracy. They are accountable to the shareholders because they are appointees, so if the shareholders don't like what they do they can give them the boot and appoint someone else. Likewise they can fire the executives if they need to, and also get a vote about a wider range of issues than the shareholders. They therefore have more direct control than the shareholders, but its still not at a very granular level of detail typically. Or if they are going super granular on one topic they are really zoomed out from everything else (and giving the executives more latitude in those areas). So I have been at board meetings where there is a 100 page board pack and the entire conversation has revolved around a microscopic discussion of one page, with everything else being skipped over.
Then the c-suite are like the executive branch. They deal with the day to day and actually have to get things done. On a daily basis shareholders and the board will generally leave them alone unless things are going poorly (in which case the eye of sauron is on you).
So hopefully it follows from that model that you actually have a lot of leverage as an executive and a lot of latitude to make decisions within a general strategic direction that has been agreed by board and shareholders. Secondly, shareholders are not a uniform blob of faceless avaricious beasts who care only about profit - institutional shareholders will have their respective shareholders and issues like reputational risk etc to consider. As an exec, you can often use credibility you have built up to persuade them of a particular strategic direction and they may or may not give you leeway depending on how much you have delivered in the past etc.
I am not familiar how this things work, is there some kind of a vote where shareholders debate if this(censorship) is a good idea or not? Or there are only a few people that can decide it.
It's implicit, the CEO must deliver value to the shareholders or be replaced. Capitalism doesn't leave a lot of room for moral standing.
Large shareholders have corporate values (ethical, etc) that they will push onto companies they own shares in.
Blackrock[1] has said social responsibility is important to them.
Companies looking for investment need to operate with principles aligned with investors or investors will look for alternatives.
[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/blackrocks-push-for-social-r...
Blackrock[1] has said social responsibility is important to them.
Companies looking for investment need to operate with principles aligned with investors or investors will look for alternatives.
[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/blackrocks-push-for-social-r...
That’s totally arguable though. For example: ‘By actively not engaging with the Chinese market we retain our core client base in the US, which would leak away in the event of persistant negative media coverage’. It doesn’t have to be a straight up monetary calculation.
That's what I get for a quick post on my commute. I meant that Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, isn't a founder of Google. So he doesn't have any leverage over the board for moral stances, and is instead stuck doing their bidding.
Of course, I'm also a bit wrong w.r.t. the structure of Alphabet. Where's Alphabet's leadership on this?
Of course, I'm also a bit wrong w.r.t. the structure of Alphabet. Where's Alphabet's leadership on this?
Rather difficult with Googles dual class share structure
Shareholders have and should have moral positions as well. Capitalism can and should be tamed, otherwise there is no difference between Mexican cartels and American corporations.
Shareholders > Board of Directors > C-Suite ( CEO, CTO, CFO, etc )
Shareholders select the board members. The board members determine the overall plan and direction of the company. The C-Suite ( CEO, CTO, CFO, etc ) execute the plan of and follow the directions of the board.
If the board members want to make drastic changes, they can ask the shareholders to vote on it. If the shareholders don't like certain board members or the changes or direction of the company, then can vote to remove board members and put in members they want.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040315/what-can-sha...
Normally, the CEOs do what the board wants and the board have a fiduciary duty to make money for the shareholders. So unless we have a rogue CEO going against the wishes of the board or shareholders, it's highly likely that most of the shareholders will support google's ambitions in china.
Do you think shareholders would have voted for Apple to leave china and leave tens of billions in revenue and profits on the table?
If anything, shareholders are probably asking google's board why google isn't doing business in china already.
Shareholders select the board members. The board members determine the overall plan and direction of the company. The C-Suite ( CEO, CTO, CFO, etc ) execute the plan of and follow the directions of the board.
If the board members want to make drastic changes, they can ask the shareholders to vote on it. If the shareholders don't like certain board members or the changes or direction of the company, then can vote to remove board members and put in members they want.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040315/what-can-sha...
Normally, the CEOs do what the board wants and the board have a fiduciary duty to make money for the shareholders. So unless we have a rogue CEO going against the wishes of the board or shareholders, it's highly likely that most of the shareholders will support google's ambitions in china.
Do you think shareholders would have voted for Apple to leave china and leave tens of billions in revenue and profits on the table?
If anything, shareholders are probably asking google's board why google isn't doing business in china already.
Alphabet has different share classes, and Page, Brin and Schmidt can outvote the rest of the shareholders. That has been motivated by the need to avoid this kind of thing.
Also, fiduciary duty doesn't mean that the CEO has a duty to bring in the profits. It means that he shouldn't dip in the till.
Also, fiduciary duty doesn't mean that the CEO has a duty to bring in the profits. It means that he shouldn't dip in the till.
Are google actions transparent to the Shareholders?
As you explained they elect the board they do not vote on do we do this imoral thing or not. I imagine some could consider that the short profits will not be good enough if the downside is the Google image getting even worse and long terms profits will fall.
All the voting power rests with Page, Brin and Schmidt. The CEO just have to convince those three people.
That doesn't mean that the CEO is compelled to choose profit regardless of other considerations.
I get the hoopla but what’s the alternative? It’s not that Chinese customers are clamoring for any of the Google services. Without Google, China will continue to develop their home grown services with far more surveillance than Google would put in. There are zero nations in the world which will stand up against China and dare to ask them do things differently. Some scholars even believe that Chinese culture is predisposed to this kind of government and westerners are simply not “getting it”. I personally don’t get either Britain’s tendencies to put person in charge of declaring wars and face on their currency because of no other reason than that person being born in certain family.
This is the really disgusting thing. Are they "just" sucking up to management or are they maybe the only ones who buy the propaganda?
Or is this some kind of self-justification process that protects them from their dying sense of guilt?