_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI I spoke with a Google worker fired for protesting $1.2B Israel contract
johnthescott wrote 1 hour 13 min ago:
"who was and wasn't involved"
pretty big set of folks.
jgalt212 wrote 2 hours 7 min ago:
Did anyone else notice the high correlation between the
immunocompromised (wearing masks in 2024) and gaza protesters?
myrandomcomment wrote 2 hours 56 min ago:
You 100% have the right to protest. What you do not have is the right
to use your access to the company building to protest in said company
building. Feel free to stage a protest out front and I 100% support
that.
If you truly object to what your employer does then quit. In this case
you are highly paid and skilled talent that is not stuck in your job.
I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory
workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people have.
FactKnower69 wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
>If you truly object to what your employer does then quit.
If you want to make a change in the world, then quit wielding your
power and just voluntarily surrender it!
>I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory
workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people
have.
I don't share or care about your guilty tech bro self-loathing. I
will continue to make a half million dollars a year barely working
while using my time and money to accomplish what political goals I
see fit. Any serious activist should do the same. Don't fall for this
bullshit narrative that you have to voluntarily live in poverty to be
a populist.
tw04 wrote 2 hours 34 min ago:
Ultimately a whole new generation is finding out about the value of a
union. You donât need collective bargaining rights up until the
point you disagree with the company you work for and decide to
vocalize it. Then you find out how few rights you have.
seanmcdirmid wrote 2 hours 24 min ago:
I know of no union in the USA that would be able to get its members
off the hook for a sit in on an executive office. The unions,
however, would at least have counsel on what its members could do
to protest, but only for collective action, Iâm not sure
anti-Israeli sentiment would meet that bar. Usually itâs for
economic things, like pay and benefits, that a majority of the
union members could actually agree on.
tw04 wrote 1 hour 59 min ago:
The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various
places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I
don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members
off" from this.
addicted wrote 52 min ago:
You are incorrect. Picketing, which is what unions do, is
preventing people from entering the workplace. You canât
really picket in the workplace.
But even assuming that is correct, unions wouldnât support
this because it doesnât fall under the mandate or the union,
which is to protect the direct interests of its members. Some
unions may broaden this to protect the interests of the
industry at large, but even that is because itâs considered
related to the direct interests of the members.
Unions may canvass their members to support other causes
outside the workplace but theyâre not gonna shut down the
workplace to support a cause that doesnât directly affect
their members.
runarberg wrote 26 min ago:
URI [1]: https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-israel-palestine/
seanmcdirmid wrote 1 hour 25 min ago:
No. [1] .
> The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a âsitdownâ strike,
when employees simply stay in the plant and refuse to work is
not protected by the law.
Also see [2] .).
When the Supreme Court rules on this topic specifically, union
lawyers are going to be fairly clear about the consequences and
advice strongly against it. Whoever organized this at Google
either didnât do a basic Google search or didnât care about
very clear consequences.
URI [1]: https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes#:~:text=Strikes%20unlawfu...
URI [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike#:~:text...
ambrozk wrote 15 min ago:
My understanding is that the protests were closely
coordinated with lawyers, and Google will likely spend a ton
of $$$ defending the terminations as a result.
seanmcdirmid wrote 13 min ago:
The case law is really clear here, unless the Supreme court
has gotten progressive enough to overturn their 1939
decision (which is really not possible), this will not make
it far at all in court (anyone can sue anyone for anything,
but this probably gets thrown out before pretrial). If they
got advice from lawyers, however, that this was ok, there
is probably clear grounds for a legal malpractice lawsuit.
I really doubt Google is going to spend much on this at
all.
Clubber wrote 1 hour 25 min ago:
>The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various
places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past...
I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get
members off" from this.
Ya but that was coordinated by the union for the benefit of the
union, right? These people are going rogue. I don't think the
UAW would support them either.
tw04 wrote 46 min ago:
You do realize the UAW has protected members from showing up
to work high, right? Gotten them into treatment and back on
the line. They donât just protect members when it suits
their needs.
They would absolutely support members protesting what the
members believe is a human rights violation.
Clubber wrote 22 min ago:
Protest activities like strikes and sit-ins/sit-downs and
whatnot are voted on and approved. When a few members do
this without voting, they endanger everyone in the union
for their personal beliefs.
If the union voted on it and it was approved, then I think
they would certainly support the protesters. If they didn't
and protestors just did it on their own, that would be a
big mess and I'm not sure what would happen, but I would
guess expulsion from the union.
URI [1]: https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/discipline-yo...
seanmcdirmid wrote 44 min ago:
They wouldnât because the case law is very clear in this.
I mean, they might offer moral support, but the lawyers
would already know that legal support is futile.
pedalpete wrote 5 hours 13 min ago:
This article ignores the vandalism and and that co-workers felt
threatened.
There is such thing as a sit-in which is disruptive, and makes the
point, but why should somebody who comes to work feel threatened by a
co-worker? That's not acceptable, no matter what the belief is.
And of course, if you vandalise your employers property, of course you
should expect to be fired.
URI [1]: https://californiaglobe.com/fr/google-fires-28-for-anti-israel...
deanCommie wrote 4 hours 22 min ago:
While I don't want to downplay anyone's feeling of safety, in the
current climate, some Jewish Zionists (A phrase i'm choosing
deliberately, as a person who is Jewish, but anti-Zionist) have
weaponized accusations of anti-semitism to suggest that any
discussion of Palestinian statehood, support for peace in Gaza, or
even the very presence of a keffiyeh are inherently anti-semitic and
make them feel threatened.
This is not happening in a vacuum. It is ALSO unfortunately true that
whenever the issue of Palestinian statehood becomes magnified some
activists use this as an excuse to promote all sorts of classic
anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists and start raging about Jewish people
indiscriminately, not just the Apartheid system. (Much in the same
way that some BLM protestors take things too far and start accusing
all white people indiscriminately of racism).
But it is happening. Since [1] is inherently associated with Yasser
Arafat, many uneducated people innocently incorrectly assume that it
is inherently a piece of terrorist paraphernalia, and as a result
feel unsafe just from it's mere presence at peaceful demonstrations.
Likewise, "from the river to the sea" and chants like it also imply a
jewish genocide for them, and make them feel unsafe. I personally
believe that particular chant is more harmful than helpful, and I
likewise cringe at people wearing keffiyeh's as a means of
solidarity. I don't care about what people THINK it means, it is
perceived by those whose opinions they must change the most
(unengaged moderates) as a symbol of terrorism for justifiable
reasons. (Much like the Nazi Swastika's original hindu origins don't
matter anymore in any context outside of India, sorry)
So. It's complex. It's nuanced. I don't know what happened. But I
wouldn't assume that just because someone "felt threatened" by this
protest that the protestors actually did anything indefensible.
Others have already touched upon the point that "vandalism" can be
defined however any party wishes it to be. My 4 year old drawing in
chalk on a sidewalk could be considered vandalism, if someone wanted
to. In Google's case, using scotch tape to attach a sign to a door
and lightly scuffing some of the paint as a result, could be
considered "vandalism" for the purpose of an HR-justifiable firing.
This is no different than "assault" legally being any physical
contact. Tapping someone on the shoulder could be "assault" if it's
deemed aggressive and unwanted. Vandalism is no different.
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh
vladgur wrote 3 hours 26 min ago:
Genuinely curious - what does Zionist and conversely anti-Zionist
mean to you?
ambrozk wrote 12 min ago:
To me, modern-day Zionism means two things:
1. The belief that Israel is the homeland of the Jews, and by
extension, my homeland.
2. The belief that Israel should remain, legally, a Jewish
supremacist state, where only Jewish sovereignty is recognized.
I disagree strongly with both of these notions.
deanCommie wrote 34 min ago:
To me, Zionism is more than just the belief that Jewish people
are entitled to a state of their own in the Levant. Because if at
this point you say that you DON'T believe that you are also
saying that you don't care about what happens to the millions of
them that live there now, or believe that that the displaced
Palestinians themselves are entitled to some form of restitution
against their oppressors.
Unfortunately we have to deal with the reality on the ground and
the reality of Jewish people in the UN partition plan.
Reparations must be made and expansion must be rolled back (all
settlers out of west bank) but at the end of the day any future
must involve either A) a state for Jewish people and a state for
Palestinian people or B) A completely united state with full
equality for all people.
To me Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have an
inherent RIGHT to an ethnic-orientated state in the Levant based
on historical (biblical) tradition. There are many ethnic groups
in the world without a homeland, and the crimes against humanity
against Jews in WW2 did not necessitate such a state there, if it
involved displacing others, which it did.
So I'm Anti-Zionist in the sense that I am against religion-based
geopolicy, I am against any inherent "greater" reason for a
Jewish state. I am a humanist who believes in the right for
safety and prosperity for Jewish and Palestenian people. I am not
interested in any solutions where either does not grant the
other's humanity or right to safety and prosperity. Beyond that
they need to AGGRESSIVELY self-police one another. Palestinians
need to self-police (and prosecute) the terrorists and Hamas and
keep them to justice. The Israelis need to self-police (and
prosecute) the west bank settlers, and reform from the bottom up
the IDF.
NicoJuicy wrote 4 hours 39 min ago:
Yeah, I call it the TikTok army
frob wrote 4 hours 56 min ago:
Could you expand on the points of vandalism and threats? The article
you linked to only had some vague corporate speak about vandalism,
which could easily refer to the banner they hung. The only reference
to anyone feeling threatened was a reference to another employee who
"felt scared," but it doesn't say the protestor were doing anything
threatening.
RickJWagner wrote 7 hours 12 min ago:
It was right for Google to dismiss the participants.
The workplace should be free from all but minimal discussions of
politics and religion. This is the most inclusive position possible.
matrix87 wrote 9 hours 36 min ago:
I'm sure the people involved are utterly irreplaceable. They really
showed google with this one!
tonfreed wrote 10 hours 56 min ago:
This is the result of civil disobedience. He wanted to raise awareness
of Google's dealings with the Israeli defence force, this is probably
the best thing that could have happened, because all eyes are on the
cause now.
He's either genuinely passionate and has taken what he sees as a moral
stand for a company he probably didn't want to work for, or his protest
is purely performative and he's fucked up pretty badly. My money is on
the second option, but without being able to read his thoughts we'll
never know
paxys wrote 9 hours 44 min ago:
We can read some of his thoughts in this very interview. He did not
expect Google to fire him for his actions.
kelseyfrog wrote 10 hours 59 min ago:
I can't help but imagine in 50 years that a parallel between Google
circa 2023 and IBM circa 1933 is thought of as a historical rhyme.
egberts1 wrote 11 hours 33 min ago:
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." -- Joshua,
W.O.P.R., "War Games"
amitbat wrote 13 hours 33 min ago:
Misinformation all over.
Social media must be regulated for the sake of the free countries,
being overtaken by tsunami of self-distructing information.
Save yourself
teddyh wrote 13 hours 42 min ago:
Most interesting fact from the article:
> KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were
not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right?
> IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely
indiscriminateâpeople who had just walked by just to say hello and
maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren't
affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and
were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see
their badge and they were among the 28 fired.
> They had to reach out after the fact to tell us, hey, I was impacted
by this. Like we had no reason to suspect that someone who wasn't
affiliated with us or wasn't even wearing a shirt or anything related
to our sit-inâwe had no reason to think that they would be retaliated
against.
So Google knew everyone who even talked to these people.
TiredOfLife wrote 13 hours 29 min ago:
Which definition of the word "fact" are you using?
teddyh wrote 13 hours 6 min ago:
Fact as in âa piece of information, presumed to be true unless
conflicting information is presentedâ?
paxys wrote 9 hours 43 min ago:
Ok, here's a fact â all these employees were protesting and
Google fired them with reason. Are you going to presume that is
true?
mingus88 wrote 14 hours 21 min ago:
Hard to take this person seriously as they equate corporate leadership
with fascism
Hey folks, every job you will get will be run by an owner that does
things their way. If you are outspoken in disagreement they have every
right to replace you with an employee that is ok with how they do
business
This personâs explicit goal was to make a disturbance and get
arrested. I canât think of a single workplace that wouldnât let you
go if thatâs what you decided to do instead of your job duties
archagon wrote 9 hours 37 min ago:
Not if you work in a cooperative. Maybe we should explore forms of
corporate leadership that are not quite so authoritarian.
lotsoweiners wrote 42 min ago:
Knock yourself out exploring them while the rest of us continue to
clock in and collect a paycheck. Once your concept has been proven
for potential profitability then one can assume owners and
shareholders will demand your ideas be used in their companies a la
AI and the WWW.
looknee wrote 14 hours 22 min ago:
Why is this post flagged?
Sabinus wrote 3 hours 36 min ago:
HN tends to do that to any topic associated with intense emotion.
Hard to have constructive discussion in threads like this.
JohnMakin wrote 13 hours 49 min ago:
Because lotsa google turfers hang out here
aaa_aaa wrote 14 hours 22 min ago:
I always wondered why did google involved with this project. It's a
small amount of money and risky considering backlash, it is supposedly
public use related. Why not leave it to usual guys who would jot
question shady deals? What compelled Google when it came to state of
Israel?
dunekid wrote 9 hours 29 min ago:
I think they should publish the Google services used by IDF, that way
GCloud customers can also rely on them, because Google is not going
to shutdown those services. It won't be appearing in killedbygoogle,
I guess.
paxys wrote 9 hours 42 min ago:
If Google performed morality tests on its customers before selling to
them then the company would have exactly $0 in revenue.
captn3m0 wrote 13 hours 41 min ago:
Israel also has an anti-protest clause in the contract, to keep
Google in the contract in face of any protests or demonstrations.
cbHXBY1D wrote 13 hours 5 min ago:
Not doubting but do you have a link?
captn3m0 wrote 11 hours 12 min ago:
[1] > When asked if the companies could shut down services,
attorney Zviel Ganz of the legal department at the Finance
Ministry said such scenarios had been taken into consideration
when formulating the tenders.
> âAccording to the tender requirements, the answer is no,â
he said, adding that the contracts also bar the firms from
denying services to particular government entities.
URI [1]: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/israel-govern...
pavon wrote 11 hours 48 min ago:
Yeah, I've seen that mentioned as well, and am curious about the
details. This techcrunch article[1] states "... strict
contractual stipulations that prevent Google and Amazon from
bowing to boycott pressure". That could be read as contract terms
that don't mention anything about protest/boycott but rather just
set a fixed term of contract, with penalties for terminating the
contract. However, it also isn't uncommon for contracts with
Israel to include anti-BDS clauses, and California has an
anti-BDS law[2], which it could also be referring to. [1]
URI [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/18/google-fires-28-employ...
URI [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
Kalium wrote 14 hours 15 min ago:
Every contract with a national government buying whole data centers
for cloud services is a major one with big numbers attached. This is
not a small amount of money and the backlash to date has yet to be
impactful.
If you want to be a major cloud player - and Google does - you need
to be willing to do what other major cloud players do and sell to
national governments. AWS, Oracle, and other hyperscalers all do.
baobabKoodaa wrote 4 hours 3 min ago:
There's a difference between "selling to governments" and "selling
to governments who are actively committing genocide".
theferalrobot wrote 2 min ago:
Certainly... it's just that anyone with a modicum of
knowledge/power knows that isn't happening (see the leaders of
basically every democracy from Germany to USA to Ukraine).
sbarre wrote 14 hours 24 min ago:
Pretty disappointed to see this topic get flagged.
blackeyeblitzar wrote 14 hours 24 min ago:
The fact that these entitled employees felt it was appropriate to bring
their personal politics to the workplace shows how bad Googleâs
culture really is, and why there is bias in every product they make -
not just the obvious ones like Gemini but also older things like
Search. On most of these activist issues, the other side doesnât have
the same safety to speak up. This firing is a positive move but Google
has a long ways to go still.
As an aside, the person interviewed here is a 23 year old that is
barely out of college. Statements like these show how naive workplace
activists often are:
> Because before then, we were Google employees with active badges who
had every right to be in that workplace. It took them until putting us
on administrative leave that they could actually get the cops to come
in.
> It was a complete overreaction on Google's part to not only fire
everyone who was and wasn't involved, but then also threaten everyone
else in the company who would dare think to stand up against this. And
people are taking notice that it feels like a very fascist environment.
And yet itâs voices like these that feel most comfortable to push
their personal politics on others in the workplace.
simoncion wrote 14 hours 20 min ago:
> The fact that these entitled employees felt it was appropriate to
bring their personal politics to the workplace...
I dunno. I expect the first shot was fired with the Google+ Real
Names policy, and the "interesting" exemptions made to it for
particular individuals (Vivek "Vic" Gundotra, included). It's kinda
been downhill from there.
matrix87 wrote 9 hours 40 min ago:
> I expect the first shot was fired with the Google+ Real Names
policy,
What is this about?
Workaccount2 wrote 14 hours 24 min ago:
Hopefully google is turning a new leaf, getting trigger happy with
purging all the zealots. They desperately need to get back to focusing
on tech, not twitterverse social issues.
uoaei wrote 13 hours 29 min ago:
You're implying Palestine only exists online?
elAhmo wrote 14 hours 25 min ago:
A lot of the tech world if filled with hypocrisy.
Many people were vocal in saying that one country has a right to defend
themselves after an attack of an actor that killed their citizens. Not
saying the same thing when another country has its own nationals killed
in an attack is a clear example of double-standards.
Similar is happening here. Companies are clear to express support and
stand with one country, but quick to fire and say 'please stay out of
politics' when support is express for another country.
cbHXBY1D wrote 13 hours 6 min ago:
Google employees didn't join to build weapons. Google lied to them
about the nature of Project Nimbus, saying it was just for civilian
use. This was proven to be a lie: [1] Google has a set of AI
principles: [2] These include:
> AI applications we will not pursue
> In addition to the above objectives, we will not design or deploy
AI in the following application areas:
> 1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm.
Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we
believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will
incorporate appropriate safety constraints.
> 2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or
implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.
> 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance
violating internationally accepted norms.
> 4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted
principles of international law and human rights.
The contract goes against those principles. Employees rightfully
speak out about this and stonewalled.
URI [1]: https://time.com/6966102/google-contract-israel-defense-mini...
URI [2]: https://ai.google/responsibility/principles/
pavon wrote 12 hours 5 min ago:
I don't see any new revelations in that Time article. Project
Nimbus from the beginning was publicly announced as providing cloud
services to all divisions of the Israeli government, but at
commercial security level. So the Defense Ministry is using it, but
not for anything sensitive, certainly not building weapons. This is
akin to Microsoft providing Office 365 to a military. In my mind
there is nothing controversial about the service being provided,
just who it is being provided to. That is, at some point a
government's actions become so bad that doing any business with
them becomes unjustifiable. Israel's conduct during this conflict
has certainly pushed them in that direction.
cbHXBY1D wrote 11 hours 54 min ago:
What do you think the Ministry of Defense does?
Are you aware of the recent revelations that it is using AI to
indiscriminately kill people at their home? [1] Do you have an
evidence that they aren't using Project Nimbus for this? Spoiler:
you do not - none of us do.
URI [1]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
uneekname wrote 14 hours 25 min ago:
I see that this post was flagged, I am curious why and hope we can
discuss that. I had not heard of this group at Google nor the story of
their arrest/termination, and I found the account to be interesting and
worthy of a spot on HN.
kortilla wrote 14 hours 17 min ago:
There isnât anything intellectually interesting about this. Itâs
drama over a very long standing political lightning rod
Phiwise_ wrote 12 hours 4 min ago:
Perhaps someone should spin up
intellectuallyinteresting.ycombinator.com?
belligeront wrote 13 hours 2 min ago:
It has been reported Israel is using AI to choose bombing targets.
How is that not intellectually interesting or relevant to a forum
about technology?
URI [1]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
greenyoda wrote 12 hours 39 min ago:
That article already had a huge discussion when it came out: 1418
points, 1601 comments. [1] And there have already been two big
discussions about the Google protests, covering the employees'
arrests and their subsequent firings: [2]
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245
URI [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40060532
URI [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40072295
ambrozk wrote 9 min ago:
Yes, so it's clearly quite relevant to this board.
belorn wrote 14 hours 18 min ago:
The IsraelâHamas war does not have much room for calm and
intellectual discussion. Was there a specific angle or pov you are
specific interested in?
paxys wrote 13 hours 44 min ago:
The discussion is not about the war, it's about a bunch of tech
employees getting fired. It should be relevant for a large chunk of
this site's user base. It certainly does not break the rules in any
way to warrant mass flagging.
cooloo wrote 13 hours 18 min ago:
So you lock yourself in executive room , what do you think will
happen?
Workaccount2 wrote 13 hours 26 min ago:
"If you lock yourself CTO's office and refuse to leave, you will
be fired"
I fail to see what is particularly compelling about this
scenario, and why it warrants discussion. Are we trying to make
it a norm to lock yourself in executive offices or something?
paxys wrote 13 hours 20 min ago:
I don't find most of the submissions on this site compelling.
That doesn't mean I flag them and try to have them removed.
People can choose to just...not participate.
> Are we trying to make it a norm to lock yourself in executive
offices or something?
Posting and discussing an article about something happening
doesn't mean you condone the behavior it is describing. Should
we just not be allowed to discuss any news over here? Or only
news that fits one particular narrative?
Ajay-p wrote 14 hours 18 min ago:
IMHO because of lot of HN supports social justice and protesting, and
they are supportive of employees taking action against any company
that is doing something that goes against their principles.
paxys wrote 13 hours 23 min ago:
The people who are in support of social justice and protesting will
want this article on the front page. Those who flagged it aren't in
that category.
elAhmo wrote 14 hours 23 min ago:
Purpose of flagging it to not have a discussion about this as it
sheds a light about what is happening.
ryandrake wrote 13 hours 46 min ago:
If you browse HN's recent history, you'll find that nearly every
single "Google/Israel" related article that gained any traction has
gotten flagged by readers. People are clearly abusing "flag" as a
mega-downvote to bury discussions they don't want to see happening.
Pretty sad. I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, but I
don't think this is appropriate behavior here. HN's "flamewar
detector" should be enough to quickly move these stories off the
front page if they get too hot. Why also flag?
thegrim33 wrote 10 hours 16 min ago:
No, I flag them because, like this thread, 99% of comments are
just political/social warfare and has nothing to do with
technology. It's just an extension of the culture war. You can go
on Reddit or Facebook or basically anywhere else on the internet
to do your cultural warfare. Can we have a single place left
where we don't fall into that pit?
ambrozk wrote 3 min ago:
Of course the protest is about technology -- it's about the
provision of technology to governments who use that technology
for war. Why wouldn't you expect the employees of these
companies have a position on that?
Like a lot of people here, I have family who died in the
Holocaust. It is highly likely that the camps they moved
through were using tech supplied by IBM. Would it have been
"culture warring" for tech employees circa 1938, to publicize
the human rights abuses being enabled by their companies?
Because that's what the people who support these protesters
think is going on here.
dunekid wrote 9 hours 39 min ago:
Have you missed the memo that HN discussion need not be
strictly about technology. The GPUs running the Genocide AI
should be the only thing to discuss? It is one thing to not
participate, but completely another to flag them to death.
lp0_on_fire wrote 8 hours 54 min ago:
> The GPUs running the Genocide AI
This is why the submissions tend to get flagged.
dunekid wrote 3 min ago:
That's not true. You can see UN sites get flagged to death.
Here I was just saying that HN discussion are not strictly
bound to be technological. Parent was saying they would
flag basically everything related to this.
jules-jules wrote 12 hours 27 min ago:
Dang has to rescue pretty much every single Israel post as they
are getting mass flagged to oblivion.
nocoiner wrote 14 hours 26 min ago:
From the article:
âIt began in 2021 and provides cloud computing services to
Israelâspecifically, weâve recently learned, to the Israeli
Ministry of Defenseâand though it has faced internal criticism since
its inception, efforts against it have naturally intensified since
October 7th.â
Criticism has intensified since October 7th? Since the day that was
marked by the assault, kidnapping and massacre of thousands of
civilians initiated by Hamas? That October 7th?
Thereâs plenty to criticize about Israelâs campaign in Gaza, but
tying objections back to the original date of the Hamas attack is
pretty gross.
yencabulator wrote 8 hours 53 min ago:
Perhaps it's just that increased awareness brings a larger audience,
and not related to the specific cause for the increased awareness.
klyrs wrote 10 hours 57 min ago:
Likewise, I started getting real critical of Islamophobia in the US
on the very day of 9/11. We are judged, not in how we act on the
best of days, but how we act on the worst of days.
The events of 9/11 didn't make me love Islam or its adherents. But
the way the american public, press, and politicians responded to the
events awoke me to the dehumanizing view that many hold towards them.
It's no different here. Israel has long held their boot to the neck
of Palestinians while funding Hamas; but now they play the victim and
use that to justify genocide because the inevitable happened.
hedora wrote 14 hours 5 min ago:
Yeah; according to an IDF report on intercepted Hamas documents (so,
both sides agree on this; nothing here should be controversial today
and it was well-understood by leadership on both sides on that day):
- Hamas had a < 20% approval rating before the attacks, and
couldnât recruit. If no action was taken, theyâd fade into
obscurity, and the conflict would finally end in a few years.
- Their plan was to force Israel to do something so bad that it would
escalate into a regional conflict, and allow them to recruit again.
- Hamasâ goal was to get Israel to level Gaza. They estimated that
three days of slaughtering civilians would be enough to get Israel to
do something unforgivable in response.
- Israel reacted after one day. At this point Hamas had won, and
stopped their initial campaign.
- Hamas now has a > 70% approval rating, and can easily recruit, so
things are going as well as they could hope, organizationally.
My opinion (I canât come up with anything else that matches the
facts):
The military leadership on both sides of this conflict should be
tried and convicted for war crimes, including genocide. The conflict
is happening because the military wings of both governments are
trying to consolidate power and secure funding/resources.
The Israeli and Palestinian civilians (and Israeli conscripts â
they still have a draft) are the victims here.
Their only hope is that theyâd band together as part of a peace
movement and replace their own governments (via an election in
Israel), but, predictably, mob rule and fear have strengthened the
right wing militants on both sides.
cooloo wrote 13 hours 14 min ago:
Blurb of bullshit.
You are selling Palestinians propaganda for one Hamas is the
elected government of Palestinians.
There is no genocide in Gaza but there was a war that also have
completed few months ago.
I hope Palestinians leadership will pay dearly for their actions
otherwise next time it would be in your town
everforward wrote 13 hours 16 min ago:
Naomi Wolf is as prescient today as she was in 2007: [1] The
easiest way to build internal cohesion is to invent or create an
external enemy and distract everyone with that.
I tend to agree, though. The conflict feels manufactured by the
respective militaries to distract from internal issues. Itâs a
waste of human life to cover up dysfunctional governing.
Howâs Netanyahuâs corruption trial going? Curious how that
timing works out, havenât heard much about since Israel started
leveling Gazaâ¦
Thatâs not to say Hamas is better, I just donât expect much of
them. Theyâre not exactly shy about speaking their mind.
URI [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_Letter...
paxys wrote 14 hours 26 min ago:
I partially blame Google for fostering an environment where these
employees genuinely thought that they could spend their working time
advocating for social causes and staging protests while staying happily
employed and cashing their paychecks/vesting RSUs. No, Google isn't
"fascist" for firing you because you barricaded yourself in the CTO's
office, intimidated and threatened fellow employees and live streamed
the entire charade. Your corporate job isn't a democracy.
If the company continues cleaning house and gets back to their mission
then maybe there's still hope for them.
aaplok wrote 3 hours 17 min ago:
> Your corporate job isn't a democracy.
If corporate jobs aren't democratic, what kind of political
organisation are they under?
lotsoweiners wrote 1 hour 11 min ago:
The corporations are democratic but the voters are the
shareholders/board. It is the employeeâs job to execute the
orders they are given not decide the direction of the business. It
is very odd that this needs to be explained on this site.
SuperNinKenDo wrote 3 hours 40 min ago:
Google wanted the social cache, without the actual cost. Like most
people I've encountered, they wished to be seen to be good,
responsible, conscientious, fair, and principled, and as with most
people I've ebcountered, they wanted it without having to actually
deal with the consequences of being any of those things.
nebula8804 wrote 5 hours 18 min ago:
idk man there is a small slice of 0.01% engineers that truly move the
needle. For the record I am not one of them. How many of these people
are focused on a cause rather than adding another 0 to their bank
accounts?
Those people are probably long gone from Google but if any are left,
why increase the chances of them leaving?
NomDePlum wrote 5 hours 21 min ago:
There was a fairly benign protest, from what I can tell.
Whether you agree with the rationale or not, those staging the
protest have come to a conclusion that Google, through the services
they deliver, is aiding the killing of innocents.
Is that unreasonable to protest? Sure it might make fellow employees
uncomfortable, but is that not the point?
It's not disputable that tens of thousands of innocent children,
women and men have been killed by Israel? Is it?
That your organisations capabilities are likely to have been used to
kill those people feels like something that should make all employees
think about the company that employs them, it is sort of relevant to
all employees, is it not?
bradfox2 wrote 4 hours 55 min ago:
Then they should quit if their personal beliefs no longer align
with the company. The expectation that they can do anything outside
of working for the company on company objectives while on company
time and not face consequences is insane to anyone that's worked at
a non-SV tech company.
Starman_Jones wrote 3 hours 2 min ago:
If your recommendation for airing their grievances still results
in their unemployment, why on earth should they quit instead of
doing what they did?
SuperNinKenDo wrote 3 hours 35 min ago:
I don't think that should be the first step. Trying to voice your
frustrations is an important first step, maybe leave if you
eventually find the organisation impervious to change, but simply
leaving as a first step isn't the right way to do things.
rakoo wrote 5 hours 48 min ago:
> Your corporate job isn't a democracy.
Herein lies the crux. We want to live in a democracy, but
fundamentally undemocratic entities run the world and act on it in
ways none of the citizens decided. The obvious next step is to
dismantle those undemocratic places, or at least reduce their actions
to what citizens decide, but we're far from it.
If the clear response is to fire those employees, the clear response
to this should be to fire google
addicted wrote 45 min ago:
What youâre suggesting is a non democratic dystopic nightmare.
For example, in your world, as long as enough people agree with me,
I can decide that the couch in your living room should actually be
in the kitchen. After all, one of the most widespread place in the
world is your housing and in todays world itâs fundamentally
undemocratic.
But simply sticking to companies/businesses, how are startups
supposed to work? You start a business, hire 2 people to help you
out, and suddenly they can democratically take over the entire
company? How is that a solution to anything?
gameman144 wrote 2 hours 33 min ago:
Wait, do we want to live in that kind of democracy? Literally the
whole reason that I love democracy is it lets the people set the
rules, then gets out of the way and lets people do their thing.
I could not disagree more strongly with the notion that democracy
should be the mechanism by which businesses should be run.
Democracy says which choices we're okay with, but businesses and
people should totally have the autonomy to decide which of the
allowed choices to go with.
paulryanrogers wrote 1 hour 40 min ago:
When companies are big or rich enough they can capture regulators
and pay for lobbyists to override the masses, the democratic
process is undermined.
We become ruled by socialopathic oligarchy, in the form of
corporations instead of a few individuals. And no one executive
can be held accountable because they're large organizations that
diffuse responsibility.
Once I was a young conservative who thought these ideas were
crazy Hollywood tropes. As I get older I see the pattern manifest
more and more in the USA.
creer wrote 3 hours 9 min ago:
Democracy doesn't mean that everything is micromanaged by elected
officials. The legal system is. The legal system is the framework
for non-profit and for-profit entities and individuals to live
their life.
We can certainly argue competence and alignment. - And soon enough
we reach the issue of who the voters choose to represent them...
Turing_Machine wrote 4 hours 16 min ago:
> We want to live in a democracy, but fundamentally undemocratic
entities run the world and act on it in ways none of the citizens
decided. The obvious next step is to dismantle those undemocratic
places, or at least reduce their actions to what citizens decide,
but we're far from it.
Governments and companies are different things entirely.
These folks can choose not to work for Google. They (and we) can't
just impulsively choose to stop dealing with the United States of
America
Well, of course you could obtain citizenship in another country and
move there, but that's much more difficult than just finding
another job, particularly if you are a Googler. I doubt they'll be
unemployed for long.
pfannkuchen wrote 4 hours 34 min ago:
The singleton structure with guns being a democracy and the many
structures anyone can start (without guns, which exists inside of
the singleton superstructure) being a democracy are not the same
thing. Maybe the latter should be a democracy as well, but the
former being one does not logically imply that the latter
necessarily should be.
twoodfin wrote 5 hours 14 min ago:
The family is a fundamentally undemocratic institution. The demos
does not get to decide how spouses interact or how parents raise
their children anywhere but at the extremities.
Nobody wants to live in a totalizing democracy.
kurikuri wrote 2 hours 37 min ago:
Using families as a counter example is quite a strawman, no?
rakoo wrote 4 hours 40 min ago:
The atomic family of 2 adults and children is a very recent
invention. The historical family is a bunch of people living
under the same roof, working and doing for the whole family, from
each according to their ability, for each according to their
needs.
The democracy is not simply everyone in a country deciding on
everything down to the minutiae of individual lives. Some
political lessons are missing here. Democracy is about the people
who are subject of a situation being also actors of the decisions
on this specific matter. Nobody is saying how you should behave
in your bedroom.
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote 2 hours 40 min ago:
>Nobody is saying how you should behave in your bedroom.
May I introduce you to the legions of anti democratic groups
vying to do just so?
Turing_Machine wrote 4 hours 14 min ago:
> The atomic family of 2 adults and children is a very recent
invention. The historical family is a bunch of people living
under the same roof, working and doing for the whole family,
from each according to their ability, for each according to
their needs.
Somewhat true, but not relevant to the point at hand. The
historical family was typically run in an autocratic fashion by
the elders, without even a vague trace of democracy. For that
matter, there are still plenty of places in the world where
families are run that way.
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote 2 hours 34 min ago:
>The historical family
Is this a serious comment or flame bait?
URI [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_famil...
Turing_Machine wrote 15 min ago:
I'm using the OP's term. If you don't like the term, take
it up with that person. It's not "flamebait" in any case.
Instead, perhaps you're disagreeing with my assertion that
most families in the past were autocratic, and that in many
cultures they still are. A link to a lengthy Wikipedia
article does nothing to refute the claim. You're going to
have to be more specific.
Most historical families in Europe, India, and China were
run by the elders on autocratic lines, and those
constitute, and pretty much always have constituted, the
majority of families on Earth (at least since the
population boom brought on by the invention of
agriculture).
Indeed, in classical Roman civilization, the paterfamilias
could kill any junior member of the family at any time, for
any reason he chose. Your own article even mentions that.
Sounds pretty autocratic to me.
mandmandam wrote 5 hours 4 min ago:
> The demos does not get to decide how spouses interact or how
parents raise their children anywhere but at the extremities.
For 99% of human history, they did actually.
But that whole argument is a red herring. OP is dead right: If
your megacorp aids genocide, there should be consequences. Firing
employees who dare to make noise about it is just peak dystopia
shit and we'd be mugs to accept it.
runarberg wrote 4 hours 5 min ago:
I guess some people wanted Schindlerâs List to be a story
about a factory owner who hired the most capable workers for
the job, who obediently worked the factory, while Schindler
made heavy profits selling weapons to the Nazis.
wilsynet wrote 6 hours 24 min ago:
There are almost two hundred thousand employees at Google. No matter
what environment Google fosters, there are always going to be 0.01%
who think itâs OK to stage a protest in the office.
Turing_Machine wrote 4 hours 13 min ago:
Maybe today it's more like 0.005%.
oceanplexian wrote 4 hours 57 min ago:
> There are almost two hundred thousand employees at Google.
There are two hundred thousand employees, and approximately 90% of
them donate to a single political party. Google isn't a politically
diverse place to work, it is an environment where you are expected
to have certain political views.
seanmcdirmid wrote 2 hours 30 min ago:
Not even 90% of those 200k live in the USA, so I seriously doubt
90% of them donate to one party in one country.
Even for USA employees, assuming that 90% of them are US citizens
who are allowed to donate money to a political party at all is
very dubious. In fact, many are from countries with very
different political ideals than either ideology in the world USA.
sahila wrote 9 min ago:
Your comment does make me think that really the only acceptable
voice to voice in a company like Google is to be a democrat.
But I bet a bunch are actually Republican and want lower taxes
for the wealthy (of which Googlers benefit some) but wonât
say it aloud.
hightrix wrote 4 hours 25 min ago:
There is even a widely publicized example of someone having a
different opinion, that opinion getting out, and them getting
fired.
Disclaimer: I'm not commenting on the content of the opinion.
Responders, please don't attempt to steer the discussion in that
direction.
amanaplanacanal wrote 2 hours 53 min ago:
There are certainly opinions that will get you fired almost
anywhere, because they cause a hostile work environment. Do you
think that should not be the case?
mandmandam wrote 5 hours 56 min ago:
If your company's products are being used to murder thousands of
thousands of women, children, babies, etc - after you were lied to
- then yeah it's "OK" to stage a protest in the office.
In fact it's damn near mandatory. Everyone has a duty to prevent
genocide, legally and morally.
Gibbon1 wrote 49 min ago:
Sort of ironic then people protesting that Hamas is being
prevented from committing genocide against Israeli Arabs and
Jews.
You have wars of choice and wars of necessity. People that
support Hamas's war of choice against Israel I'm not taking
seriously when they complain about Israel's war against Hamas.
pcthrowaway wrote 50 min ago:
This is reminding me of IBM selling computing equipment to Nazi
Germany.
I don't necessarily blame people for being unwilling to protest,
but I respect the fuck out of the employees who did, and I hope
for a future where Google is not viewed kindly for this contract
(though to be fair, I don't think IBM suffered any actual
consequences beyond a reputation hit for their role in aiding the
Nazis)
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote 5 hours 14 min ago:
People need to remember that "I was just doing my job" isn't a
defense. There is a moral duty to interfere and obstruct. There
is a moral duty not to disrupt those interfering and obstructing.
Sometimes you need to get up to good trouble.
FactKnower69 wrote 53 min ago:
Tangential, but one cool externality of everything on the
internet now being instantly scraped and archived and digested
by LLMs is that if you're reading this, you can rest assured
that your position on this issue has been recorded, and
permanently associated with your identity. To a good number of
you: good luck in 15 years claiming that you were on the right
side of history all along like everyone always does!
pcthrowaway wrote 49 min ago:
You are way more optimistic than me if you think the people
defending Google will suffer any penalties. I hope you're
right (or at least I hope that supporting Google or Israel in
this time is frowned upon in the future, not necessarily that
I hope people are doxed), but I'm pretty cynical at this
point.
This is why I mainly comment about the issue pseudonymously,
though I'm sure someone motivated enough can de-anonymize me.
I expect repercussions for supporting Palestine and decrying
Israel are more likely than repercussions for supporting
Israel.
lotsoweiners wrote 1 hour 30 min ago:
Bullshit. Iâd gladly sit on a morally bankrupt throne of cash
if it were offered to me. If I felt the opposite way then
Iâm sure there would be a long line of people willing to fill
that seat. You exist in a bubble.
kcplate wrote 5 hours 14 min ago:
So why work for the company in the first place?
FactKnower69 wrote 1 hour 8 min ago:
Project Nimbus did not exist 3 years ago
cogman10 wrote 5 hours 30 min ago:
True, but you shouldn't then expect to show up to that same job
the next day after protesting.
I mean, perhaps if we had better worker rights, but still even in
the most progressive nation I wouldn't expect an office protest
not to warrant the company firing the employees doing the
protest. When unions strike, they don't do it at their desks.
I'm sympathetic to why these employees protested, but also think
it's unreasonable for them to think they could keep working at
google after the protest.
mandmandam wrote 5 hours 16 min ago:
No one said the employees expected to keep their jobs. This is
a strawman.
And it's not what I'm challenging with the above comment. OP
claimed it's "not OK" to protest in the office, even when the
protest is against mass murder of innocent people.
cogman10 wrote 4 hours 56 min ago:
> That it seemed a bit much in response to Google employees
just sitting-in, in their workspace peacefully, saying,
âHey, drop Project Nimbus or come talk to us about it. Have
some sort of conversation with us.â It was a complete
overreaction on Google's part to not only fire everyone who
was and wasn't involved, but then also threaten everyone else
in the company who would dare think to stand up against this.
And people are taking notice that it feels like a very
fascist environment.
That was from the article.
Sabinus wrote 3 hours 50 min ago:
The truly worrying part of Google's reaction was firing
people who just stopped by to talk to the protestors.
The rest was fairly standard operating practice for corps.
drewmcarthur wrote 11 hours 13 min ago:
> your corporate job isnât a democracy
why not? shouldnât it be?
paxys wrote 11 hours 5 min ago:
It can be, but this one isn't.
SJC_Hacker wrote 11 hours 9 min ago:
You can certainly try. Make every employee part owner and then
everyone can vote on C-levels. Of course, that buy-in could be a
little steep (if its not a early-stage startup) ...
pixl97 wrote 11 hours 9 min ago:
I mean, I don't think corporations should be a democracy.
This said, I don't think they should have any political power
whatsoever. A corporation that operates as a fascist entity will
demand fascist lobbying and laws and thereby lessen the democratic
county it is operating in.
drewmcarthur wrote 11 hours 5 min ago:
i agree companies shouldnât have political sway, but why
shouldnât the place you spend so much time and effort for be
democratically governed? whatâs the argument that government
should be, but industry shouldnât?
thatâs the whole basis of Elizabeth Andersonâs âPrivate
Governmentâ
JumpCrisscross wrote 10 hours 12 min ago:
> why shouldnât the place you spend so much time and effort
for be democratically governed?
Itâs inefficient [1]
URI [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
malcolmgreaves wrote 5 hours 57 min ago:
Nothing is more _inefficient_ than top-down governance from
people who are so many layers removed from the folks who have
built up real expertise from doing the work that makes the
company's revenue.
JumpCrisscross wrote 5 hours 2 min ago:
> Nothing is more _inefficient_ than top-down governance
from people who are so many layers removed
Correct. Those are the information-transaction costs Coase
describes in his âNobelâ prize winning write-up [1]
URI [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2626876
drewmcarthur wrote 7 hours 27 min ago:
good point. why did all these countries become democracies
in the first place? we should revert to autocracy /s
faust201 wrote 11 hours 11 min ago:
May be you should open a company hire some of these IT workers and
then post the results. (not sarcasm but genuinely to prove)
racional wrote 11 hours 19 min ago:
Google isn't "fascist" for firing you because you barricaded yourself
in the CTO's office,
The term "fascist" was very clearly not in reference to the firing,
but to the objectively obnoxious and intimidating internal memo that
was sent out afterwards. Along with the cavalier firing of people
who were apparently not involved in the protest itself, but just
stopping by to chat.
Flagged, it seems, for pointing out what the language of the article
plainly indicates.
o11c wrote 7 hours 56 min ago:
Vouched after double checking that this is, in fact, plainly
indicated in the article.
(For those unaware, if you have "showdead" on in your profile, then
click on a particular comment's timestamp, you can vouch to undo
flags. Outside of threads like this, most flags are valid so
showdead is annoying.)
blackeyeblitzar wrote 14 hours 16 min ago:
The intimidation factor doesnât get talked about enough. The
internal activists are almost universally far left, reflecting the
political leanings of the Bay Area. Anyone who speaks up with a
different idea on any political topic will get attacked by a mob of
these people. That means angry patronizing replies, getting
criticized in public (outside of internal discussions), getting
complaints sent to HR, etc.
cogman10 wrote 5 hours 26 min ago:
Perhaps in the bay area, but in a red state I experience pretty
much the opposite atmosphere. I don't tell people I'm a lefty
generally because I'm fairly certain most of my coworkers are right
to far right (and many express those opinions freely).
We are in a pretty politically charged environment right now.
Opinions and temperatures can run hot against the out groups.
CoastalCoder wrote 2 hours 42 min ago:
There used to be an expectation that one doesn't discuss sex,
religion, or politics in the workplace.
Incidents like this make me think there's some wisdom in that.
amatecha wrote 32 min ago:
I think any employer instantly loses the ability to say "don't
talk politics" when they decide to build software/services for
the military :)
lotsoweiners wrote 1 hour 17 min ago:
Totally agree and think it mostly the industries with a heavy
population of far leaning individuals (tech, defense, etc) that
like to discuss this stuff. I work in local government and very
rarely hear any opinions about anything relate to politics or
religion.
infamouscow wrote 9 hours 41 min ago:
There's at least one company that infiltrate various large
companies just to observe, record, and compile lists of these
ideologues doing activism in the workplace. I hear they're doing
well selling the evidence to other companies that want nothing to
do with these people.
As the Overtone window continues to shift back, it would be wise
for those captured by idealogical stupidity to earnestly apologize.
They've irreparably soured themselves to most people over the last
few years, and unlike the past, I think the damage is too great
this time to just move on. People have to take responsibility and
be held accountable.
For every James Damore, there's 10 nameless people as effected, but
without the name recognition. It hasn't been easy for them. I can
understand why retribution and vengeance are more important than
moving on.
dmitrygr wrote 7 hours 35 min ago:
> There's at least one company that infiltrate various large
companies just to observe, record, and compile lists of these
ideologues doing activism in the workplace. I hear they're doing
well selling the evidence to other companies that want nothing to
do with these people.
I want to believe. But do you have any evidence?
no_exit wrote 7 hours 38 min ago:
lmao
JumpCrisscross wrote 9 hours 16 min ago:
> one company that infiltrate various large companies just to
observe, record, and compile lists of these ideologues doing
activism in the workplace
Do you have an example? Because one, that's HR's job. And two,
I'd be blown away if a large company's HR would outsource such a
sensitive assignment.
tanseydavid wrote 6 hours 52 min ago:
The poster is alluding to Project Veritas I think.
throwaway48476 wrote 6 hours 20 min ago:
Aren't they a media firm that publishes exposes? I don't
think that quite fits for a business intelligence firm.
theptip wrote 14 hours 24 min ago:
Do you have references for the âintimidated and threatenedâ bit?
Is there a claim it went beyond a peaceful protest?
paxys wrote 14 hours 16 min ago:
If you go in to the office and there are dozens of people sitting
at your desk waving flags and having political protests and
refusing to let you enter and do your job, what would you call that
exactly? Is that a safe working environment? How do you think an
Israeli employee in that same office would have felt on the day of
the protests?
These protests don't happen in a vacuum. The entire purpose is to
disrupt day to day work and make people take notice.
frakkingcylons wrote 9 hours 33 min ago:
No I would not feel like my safety was threatened. I can imagine
much more concerning shit than people sitting and holding signs.
ALittleLight wrote 6 hours 9 min ago:
It's not about feeling like your safety is threatened
physically or that you will be hurt or killed. I agree
"threatened" or "safety" language is slightly out of place -
but I'm not sure what the right alternative is.
The issue is, imagine you disagree with these protesters. Do
you feel comfortable saying "Actually, I support Israel because
X, Y, and Z. This isn't really a genocide, blah blah blah." I
think most people would not feel comfortable disagreeing with a
small crowd loudly protesting.
Nor should you feel comfortable, in my view, expressing that
opinion at work. That opinion might make other people with
contrasting opinions feel uncomfortable. It might make them
hate you. Work isn't about opining on politics or current
affairs, it's about, in Google's case, slightly altering your
login form or cancelling products. Employees at work should
focus on their jobs, or privately talk with people they are
comfortable around - not really a problem if two friends and
coworkers have a small political debate over lunch, more of a
problem if there is a conversation imposed on unwilling
participants.
The issue is that some people violate this unspoken agreement
and force their political fixations on everyone else.
neilk wrote 9 hours 53 min ago:
Yes, that is perfectly safe. And obviously so.
It may be upsetting, or disruptive to work, or a firing offense,
but per your description nobody was in danger.
ancorevard wrote 14 hours 29 min ago:
The Overton window has changed. Imagine Google saying this during peak
BLM.
"But ultimately we are a workplace and our policies and expectations
are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that
disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the
company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or
debate politics. This is too important a moment as a company for us to
be distracted."
There is hope here that Google will not fade into irrelevance.
timmg wrote 3 hours 24 min ago:
Isn't this kinda similar to what Brian Armstrong said around that
time?
(And yeah, he did get dragged for it.)
paxys wrote 9 hours 47 min ago:
> Imagine Google saying this during peak BLM.
Were there BLM protests inside Google's offices?
throwaway420911 wrote 2 hours 6 min ago:
There needn't be (Sundar sent twenty emails in support of it)
HDThoreaun wrote 13 hours 7 min ago:
Google fired that guy who wrote the gender manifesto so its not like
this is anything new really
klyrs wrote 8 hours 40 min ago:
Yeah but that was persecution and censorship; this is just
desserts. No comparison. Just like you can beat the shit out of
cops in some cities but in other cities that's a crime. You just
can't compare these things.
reverius42 wrote 5 hours 35 min ago:
> you can beat the shit out of cops in some cities
citation definitely needed
klyrs wrote 5 hours 1 min ago:
It's the most patriotic thing a person can do in Washington DC,
but just try it in a small town.
baobabKoodaa wrote 4 hours 20 min ago:
What?
Sabinus wrote 3 hours 45 min ago:
A reference to January 6.
SJC_Hacker wrote 11 hours 7 min ago:
I guess the lesson is, don't stick out your neck unless you
absolutely have to.
lp0_on_fire wrote 10 hours 23 min ago:
Absolutely.
Sex, Politics, and Religion should be third rails at the office,
imo.
TiredOfLife wrote 13 hours 34 min ago:
>Imagine Google saying this during peak BLM.
If Google had employees protesting against BLM they would also had
been fired.
Ajay-p wrote 14 hours 3 min ago:
Has it, and which Overton window are you thinking? The public
tolerance for (disruptive) protest, corporate tolerance for political
activism in the workplace, or.. ?
If I had to venture a guess, I would say the window has shifted
towards political burnout. People may be more comfortable shutting
down disruptions like these because they are burned out, and feel the
disruption/protests/activism has gone too far.
ancorevard wrote 11 hours 9 min ago:
Remember how much public beatings Coinbase received when they
announced they were going to be a mission and merit driven company?
lesuorac wrote 5 hours 21 min ago:
Like the top two comments being in support of Coinbase's mission
first declaration?
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24610267
smcl wrote 14 hours 31 min ago:
They should get in touch with Elon Musk, I seem to recall he promised
to pay the legal fees for anyone fired for their political beliefs...
tomschlick wrote 9 hours 31 min ago:
No one here got fired for their political beliefs.
They got fired for expressing those beliefs at work, on company time
while disrupting the work of that company and then refusing to leave
when told to do so.
redleader55 wrote 14 hours 33 min ago:
Why is no one talking about the fact they locked themselves in the
CTO's office and this is why they were fired?
doctaj wrote 3 hours 18 min ago:
People wouldnât usually get fired for hanging out in someoneâs
office. All these people have after-hours access and most offices are
not locked. Itâs *OBVIOUSLY* not about the act of going into an
office and locking yourself in or even causing a disruption to one
personâs dayâ¦
cbHXBY1D wrote 13 hours 13 min ago:
Maybe because the article is an interview with someone at the NYC
sit-in?
avidiax wrote 14 hours 19 min ago:
There's this odd idea in the discourse that protest is supposed to be
convenient to everyone, particularly the decision makers that the
protest is meant to influence.
You see this in the "free speech zones" and other nonsense.
But it's also just simply obvious and freely admitted. They were
protesting inside Google buildings, which gives lee-way for their
arrest and firing.
Both sides are calculating that arrest and firing helps their cause.
paxys wrote 13 hours 58 min ago:
There are political protests that happen in a free democratic
society and protests that happen in a multi-trillion dollar
capitalist corporation. I have no idea why people think they should
or will be treated the same.
The Google constitution does not give employees the right to free
speech or the right to stage public protests.
rstat1 wrote 11 hours 35 min ago:
No but the US one does, and its the only one that matters in this
particular case.
scheme271 wrote 7 hours 44 min ago:
The US constitution applies to the US government. For a while,
there were questions as to which parts and how much of it
applied to state governments. The constitution doesn't really
apply to private individuals and organizations, which is why a
company can do things like ban neo-nazis from their platforms.
coredog64 wrote 5 hours 35 min ago:
While itâs technically correct that the First Amendment
only applies to the US government, it is also true that
Americans are (or were) understood to have broad free speech
rights that included all facets of life.
Were that not the case, the Hollywood blacklisting of known
or suspected Communists would be a nothing-burger and not a
cause célèbre.
otterley wrote 2 hours 21 min ago:
Nobody at the time called Hollywood blacklisting a First
Amendment violation. In fact, the First Amendment offered
pretty weak protections for content once deemed pretty
subversive, yet considered banal today, until the 1969
Brandenberg Supreme Court decision. For example, in the
1920s you could be criminally prosecuted for openly
sympathizing with the Communist party and that was deemed
just fine. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
It shouldnât be lost on anyone knowledgeable of legal
history that every conservative who relies on modern
âfree speechâ principles to insulate themselves from
liability for disseminating bullshit to achieve their
political gains has a âliberal activist courtâ to thank
for the privilege.
jquery wrote 14 hours 25 min ago:
People are talking about it. If they had any ideological sympathy for
the protest or even a neutral bearing, it's unlikely they would've
fired 28 people in response. That's a fairly extreme reaction.
JumpCrisscross wrote 10 hours 15 min ago:
> If they had any ideological sympathy for the protest or even a
neutral bearing, it's unlikely they would've fired 28 people in
response. That's a fairly extreme reaction
Totally disagree. If someone decides the way to get my attention is
occupying my office and scribbling on my whiteboard, I donât care
how much I agree with their argument, their judgement is lacking.
Especially if that is the opening move.
pydry wrote 14 hours 27 min ago:
Everyone's talking about it.
I'm sure if anybody locked themselves in IBM's CTO's office to
protest them selling the computers used in the holocaust that those
employees would have been terminated too.
racional wrote 13 hours 14 min ago:
And if something like HN had existed at the time - commenters would
be lambasting the protesters for how self-righteous and
self-important they must feel; for using the workplace to inflict
their personal morals on others; for not respecting IBM's right to
make money (thus paying their hefty salaries) as it sees fit; for
not respecting the rights of other workers at IBM who couldn't care
less about the matter, and who after all are just trying to lead
their best life, you know; how no hiring manager in their right
mind could afford to have anyone involved in this sort of protest
on their team, etc. And how few people will notice this petty
attention-seeking outburst, and surely no one will remember
anything of it in a few days time, anyway.
You can be very, very sure.
orlp wrote 14 hours 29 min ago:
> KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were
not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right?
> IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely
indiscriminateâpeople who had just walked by just to say hello and
maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren't
affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and
were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see
their badge and they were among the 28 fired.
So is this a lie?
wilsynet wrote 6 hours 19 min ago:
There were people who showed up to Washington DC on Jan 6, who were
not affiliated with Proud Boys. Who saw the shattered windows and
open doors, and decided to go for a stroll through the Capitol
building. I think they just showed up and were interested in what
was going on too.
Kalium wrote 14 hours 25 min ago:
"Lie", "incorrect", and "incomplete information" are very different
things. Ibraheem clearly believes this to be true, but that is not
the same as it being so.
everforward wrote 13 hours 13 min ago:
It would be incumbent on Google to disprove that, imo. There have
to be like 8,000 security or phone videos of it, many of them
likely on corporate devices.
It would be precisely in Googleâs data-gathering wheelhouse to
disprove that.
itsdrewmiller wrote 13 hours 27 min ago:
It seems like you are implying it is incorrect or incomplete - do
you have any evidence to the contrary or context to add?
paxys wrote 9 hours 46 min ago:
Do you have any evidence that Google's version is incorrect or
incomplete? We are just hearing two sides of the story.
Kalium wrote 12 hours 47 min ago:
I'm not implying anything of the sort. My point is that an
unsupported assertion should not be treated as a well-supported
truth. All we know right now is what a single person believes.
I am not questioning what Ibraheem believes. I'm saying that
statements of fact require support.
mandmandam wrote 11 hours 20 min ago:
Ok, but why question only the "statement of fact" made in
response to the "statement of fact" that "they locked
themselves in the CTO's office and this is why they were
fired?"
Why value a random HN stranger's account over the account of
an employee who sacrificed a lucrative career to bring
attention to this? Is it perhaps because you ideologically
agree with one "statement of fact" over the other? Or is it
more self interested?
Vegenoid wrote 7 hours 10 min ago:
This person did not bring up the lack of proof for the
claim unprompted, they responded to somebody asking about
the truth of the statement:
> So is this a lie?
They were responding to this, and my interpretation of what
they said is: "It doesn't appear to be a lie, but we do not
know if is true, as somebody can be incorrect without
lying".
Kalium wrote 11 hours 9 min ago:
I think a discourse that runs:
> Assertion one
> Assertion two, claiming assertion one requires asserter
two to be a liar
is one that can benefit from being grounded a bit.
On a personal level, I do not believe that the magnitude of
a person's sacrifice empowers their beliefs with any
particular level of truth, accuracy, or moral imperative.
The magnitude of a person's sacrifice is, in my mind, a
statement only and strictly on the depths of their
conviction and willingness to sacrifice. History is replete
with examples of people who have sacrificed much for
reasons good, bad, or just plain weird to our eyes.
0898 wrote 14 hours 35 min ago:
Itâs noticeable that everybody in this protest is wearing a face
mask, to the point it feels political.
Could anybody explain whatâs going on there?
jgalt212 wrote 2 hours 4 min ago:
I think because most people wearing masks in 2024 are mentally ill.
Of course, some are immunocompromised, but most are simply mentally
ill. And we are letting these mentally ill people drive the culture.
paxys wrote 13 hours 56 min ago:
Uh, protestors have been wearing face masks since protesting first
became a thing. What is so weird about it?
lotsoweiners wrote 58 min ago:
Iâve never seen a protester in person (in my 40s) so I was
actually genuinely curious about this and asked a similar question
elsewhere in this thread
pcthrowaway wrote 44 min ago:
um.. what country do you live in, if you're comfortable sharing?
I didn't even know this was possible
seanmcdirmid wrote 42 min ago:
If someone grew up in the American Deep South or even rural
Midwest, itâs completely possible here in the states.
dazc wrote 14 hours 22 min ago:
If you're likely to be looking for a job in the near future it's
probably a good idea not to have your image easily searchable?
wutwutwat wrote 14 hours 28 min ago:
Wait, isnât every protest political? And given the fact facial
recognition exists, as well as recording devices, and power regimes
tend to rise and fall, so whatâs fine/legal today might make you a
traitor tomorrow, or be used to cancel you or sabotage you publicly,
a face mask is bare minimum deterrent for anything imo.
harimau777 wrote 14 hours 29 min ago:
At least in the US, wearing a mask while protesting is common in
order to avoid harassment.
local_person wrote 10 hours 0 min ago:
It wasn't until 2020, that's a recent change.
graemep wrote 14 hours 31 min ago:
It is weird to see people still wearing facemasks, but "it feels
political" is an odd reaction to an essentially political protest.
0898 wrote 7 hours 38 min ago:
I understand the protest is political. I'm wondering why they're
wearing masks.
baobabKoodaa wrote 4 hours 6 min ago:
Same reason they all attach pronomins next to their name: ingroup
signaling.
david_allison wrote 14 hours 31 min ago:
Anonymity + non-threatening nature, and nobody would want the optics
of suggesting that people shouldn't be free to wear a facemask
bewaretheirs wrote 13 hours 11 min ago:
There are anti-mask laws on the books in many parts of the US
because of the use of masks by the KKK while they were intimidating
people.
davidgerard wrote 14 hours 34 min ago:
they're indoors, dude. COVID is still here.
simoncion wrote 14 hours 30 min ago:
Yep.
It's the very least you can do to protect yourself (and everyone
else you come in contact with later) if your work cannot be done
remotely and your boss (or the nature of the work) obligates you to
remain in close contact with other people's untreated exhaled air,
or if your work can be done remotely, but your boss obligates you
to not do it remotely.
throwaway920102 wrote 14 hours 32 min ago:
Serious question, what percentage of people working at a Google
office wear a mask during work? I'm at an office in NYC of a
smaller but household name tech company a few blocks away that used
to do in-office mandatory nasal swab testing and masks at one point
but now there are no precautions taken at all other than "if you're
sick, you have to tell us and not come in".
Curious if there's been a big bifurcation of covid precautions at
workplaces that I'm just unaware of (since I only regularly enter
one office).
tetromino_ wrote 1 hour 27 min ago:
Serious answer: from what I have seen in the NYC office, around
1%, maybe less. (I suspect they are immunocompromised or have
immunocompromised family members.)
Ajay-p wrote 14 hours 6 min ago:
For reference, since this is a private company, I work for a
federal agency. My department is roughly 80 people. No one wears
a mask.
lotsoweiners wrote 55 min ago:
I work for a local government agency and only come in once or
twice a month but I probably havenât seen a mask in the
office in over 2 years.
falcolas wrote 14 hours 24 min ago:
Masking/distancing doesn't have to be workplace mandated to be a
good idea. Especially indoors.
At this point, it's personal choice to protect yourself against
Covid (and the flu, colds, et.al.).
jgalt212 wrote 2 hours 2 min ago:
The longer you wear a mask, the sicker you'll get when you
finally take it off.
simoncion wrote 14 hours 25 min ago:
> Curious if there's been a big bifurcation of covid precautions
at workplaces that I'm just unaware of...
It's almost certain that nearly all workplaces are doing nearly
nothing in regards to COVID precautions. (After all, (because of
the nature of stock investment market) COVID precautions don't
generate shareholder value, and certainly have negative ROI for
their parent-company's/owner's/whatever real estate investment
portfolio.)
The variance will be due to a mixture of each individual's level
of acceptable risk, and how clued-in they are about their local
COVID situation, and COVID more generally.
Workaccount2 wrote 13 hours 23 min ago:
COVID is here to stay, it is now an endemic virus like
influenza or the array of "common cold" viruses. You are free
to wear a mask and socially distance for the rest of your life,
I'm sure in 1930 you could still find holdouts from the
influenza pandemic of 1917 still freaking out about it.
But society at large has just accepted it and is back to
carrying on like normal.
simoncion wrote 13 hours 0 min ago:
This sentiment is just as useful as "Nah, don't bother
wearing a condom or any other barrier protection, those STDs
are just all over the place." would be in the mid-1980's (and
onwards).
snapcaster wrote 11 hours 48 min ago:
Are you going to wear a mask indoors forever?
seti0Cha wrote 12 hours 23 min ago:
Just to be clear...your position is that wearing face masks
when around people indoors is the prudent choice in
perpetuity? I honestly don't understand your perspective.
What is it about covid19 that makes that necessary as
distinct from all the other communicable diseases that
humans have passed around for millennia? Or is it your
position that wearing masks was always the smart thing to
do?
DIR <- back to front page