Google Manifesto Lawsuit Published

[Altaiire]

Google is a private company that is therefore entitled to espouse whatever views and pursue whatever policies they please with regards to their clientele.

You're right that Google can believe whatever it wants to believe. However, firing employees on the basis of political affiliation/thought is a different matter. It may well be a violation of the Californian labor code, depending on certain interpretations of its language (see Division 2, Part 3, Chapter 5, s. 1101/1102.)

[Dooom35796821595]

It's a reference to 1984, a dark dystopian book by George Orwell that describes a world where the state is this omnipresent evil entity controlling everyone through surveillance and information control. It's the origin of the term "Big Brother is watching".

Essentially the government watches you all the time AND the government controls what information you get. To paraphrase the book: "If the government decides 2+2 = 5 than 2+2 will equal 5."

And google, with its data collection and frankly monopolistic practices is approaching that. Not only do they know everything you do using their services but they doctor your search results. In fact, the whole squabble they had with China was because they were competing to do the same thing. And that should tell you something.

I did not realize that Google was the Government. Damn it, why didn't anyone tell me?!

It's a secret, Google are run by the CIA.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Google says "Do as I say, not as I do", and in response, I hope google takes off the Orwell goggles somewhere down the road.

So in what way is Google actually emulating the world of 1984?

I'm not seeing anyone being maliciously unpersoned, nor am I seeing language being rewritten to expunge concepts like freedom or rebellion.

But what if he's referencing Animal Farm? :Thinkingface:

[Liriena]

Google is objectively evil, but Damore is an attention-seeking chud who's been squeezing his 15 minutes of fame in the online alt-right circles for all their worth.

So... screw both, I guess, but specially the chud, for being a chud.

[Sovaal]

Goin to go with my default state of hating all sides involved.

[Liriena]

I just heard Tucker Carlson the Republican being anti-business because of this.
Obviously google should be regulated to make sure that these biases don't filter into their search engine, and that if these allegations are true, that they be sued.

Google's search engine is, in fact, biased. But iirc, their bias is more anti-left and occasionally anti-LGBT than anti-Damore's-bullshit.

[Liriena]

lol this nerd just won't shut up. Someone please shove him in a locker or something.

All I want for Christmas is a swirlie for every Silicon Valley techbro.

[Atlanticatia]

Lmao this is just absolutely wild. Just wild.

[Sovaal]

My brother works for Google.

Therefore, I refuse to believe that Google could do any wrong.

Besides, a company should be allowed to enforce a pro liberal political culture. There's nothing wrong about that.

Uh, not exactly the best mindset to have really.

[Liriena]

My brother works for Google.

Therefore, I refuse to believe that Google could do any wrong.

Besides, a company should be allowed to enforce a pro liberal political culture. There's nothing wrong about that.

Uh, not exactly the best mindset to have really.

I mean, Google is pretty much omniscient and increasingly powerful, so we might as well start a cult to it before it turns against us failthless heathens.

[Petrasylvania]

I mean, Google is pretty much omniscient and increasingly powerful, so we might as well start a cult to it before it turns against us failthless heathens.

After it turns sentient.

One day I'll click on Google to look up something and instead of the usual header it'll say "SKYNET DID NOTHING WRONG".

[Costa Fierro]

Google is objectively evil, but Damore is an attention-seeking chud who's been squeezing his 15 minutes of fame in the online alt-right circles for all their worth.

He's attention seeking despite the fact we haven't heard anything between the time he was fired and the launch of his class-action lawsuit? You'd think if he was doing this for attention he'd be constantly trying to get his name in the news cycle rather than remaining silent for a few months before launching said lawsuit.

[Vassenor]

So yeah, this does feel a little like "when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression" really.

[Kenmoria]

My brother works for Google.

Therefore, I refuse to believe that Google could do any wrong.

Besides, a company should be allowed to enforce a pro liberal political culture. There's nothing wrong about that.

Anecdotal evidence is not actual evidence and this particular anecdote means nothing. My family have worked for companies that are morally questionable and their employers do not become omnibenevolent because of that. Google also doesn't really enforce any pro-liberal culture on its employees.

[Costa Fierro]

So yeah, this does feel a little like "when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression" really.

Nah, it's more "we're forcing you out if you have different political opinions". You wouldn't feel the same way if someone who had a liberal leaning was forced out of a company for their political beliefs. In this case, he was outright fired which is a lot more blatant.

[-Ocelot-]

Hating people for having far-right views is "evil" now? If this document is true, Google wants to have no fascists in their company. How is this surprising or controversial?

I don't understand how or when we reached the point where far-right (aka alt-right these days) views should be respected. If you want to be a right-wing extremist, at least try to hide it in your workplace.

Google's HR taking offense to "alt-right" views but apparently not views aligning with Antifa (begins at page 27 line 20), and much more.

Google's HR is ok with anti-fascism? Absolutely unacceptable! What else are these evil lizards hiding from us?

[Dumb Ideologies]

You shouldn't fire people for a politely-argued and utterly hatespeech-free opinion in an internal memo posted in an area that claims to welcome debate and exchange of ideas where exchanging views in this manner is part of organisational culture. I hope he's awarded substantial damages and the ruling is suitably cutting in language.

[War Gears]

My brother works for Google.

Therefore, I refuse to believe that Google could do any wrong.

You had a long run, IM, but now I know you're not for real.

Goin to go with my default state of hating all sides involved.

^ This.

[Aellex]

Hating people for having far-right views is "evil" now? If this document is true, Google wants to have no fascists in their company. How is this surprising or controversial?

I don't understand how or when we reached the point where far-right (aka alt-right these days) views should be respected. If you want to be a right-wing extremist, at least try to hide it in your workplace.

The problem is that in the eyes of the people making those shits, everyone right of Mao is "Far-Right".

Google's HR is ok with anti-fascism? Absolutely unacceptable! What else are these evil lizards hiding from us?

Antifas are suffering of the aforementioned problem making them not so much "Anti-Fascists" than "Left-Wing Fascists" (for all inaccurate that term is given the fascists were rather leftists to begin with).
Unsurprisingly people don't like to be witch-hunted just because they haven't drunk the Far-Left kool-aid.

[Aellex]

So yeah, this does feel a little like "when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression" really.

Given you've proven times and times again that you think that "equality" for your ilk means giving you privileges, I'm not much surprised.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Not taking reports of workplace harassment seriously is not okay in the slightest. Providing support for lgbt individuals and not to straight individuals can be okay, butonly if it's done in a proper way: you can provide like an lgbt support service, however listing out separate contacts for every group but one is likely to bring you lawsuits, and is on really dodgy legal ground. I fully hope that this lawsuit succeeds, not for ideological reasons but a workplace culture that divides people unnecessarily can very quickly become toxic.

[Oil exporting People]

Google, along with most other tech companies, needs to be nationalized and then broken up into smaller entities with firm government supervision. While I doubt this case will lead to such, it is my firm desire to see such eventually happen.

[Purpelia]

I did not realize that Google was the Government. Damn it, why didn't anyone tell me?!

They don't have to be. If someone is out to control you by controlling what information you can access and monitoring everything you do does it really matter what they call them self or what their motive are?

Hating people for having far-right views is "evil" now? If this document is true, Google wants to have no fascists in their company. How is this surprising or controversial?

Because it is fundamentally wrong to permit a corporate entity to control the ideology of its workers. And it is something that in a sensible society is forbidden for a good reason. Because the only way to protect anyone is to protect everyone.

[War Gears]

Google, along with most other tech companies, needs to be nationalized and then broken up into smaller entities with firm government supervision. While I doubt this case will lead to such, it is my firm desire to see such eventually happen.

It's doubtful that anyone would be on board with that, whether or not they're Democrats or Republicans, and it would be an absolute mess.

[-Ocelot-]

I did not realize that Google was the Government. Damn it, why didn't anyone tell me?!

They don't have to be. If someone is out to control you by controlling what information you can access and monitoring everything you do does it really matter what they call them self or what their motive are?

Hating people for having far-right views is "evil" now? If this document is true, Google wants to have no fascists in their company. How is this surprising or controversial?

Because it is fundamentally wrong to permit a corporate entity to control the ideology of its workers. And it is something that in a sensible society is forbidden for a good reason. Because the only way to protect anyone is to protect everyone.

Why should a company be obliged to respect extremist ideologies that are based on violence? Would you say the same if the employees in question were radical islamists?