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.
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
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.
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.
What you’re 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 it’s 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?
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...
The US is a capitalist democracy where companies with money can choose to pay people to do stuff and if the people are annoying, stop paying them. A lot of people with choice would like to live there, hence the millions of immigrants turning up. Maybe you can find some other system where you can protest against your employers policy without problems? I'm not sure communism works well if you want to protest your leaders there either. Maybe some place like France? They have a lot of protests and make it hard to fire people.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
> 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.
Someone walked by the sit-in, talked to the people protesting, security checked their badge and they got fired.
That seems pretty fascist to me. It also makes it quite clear that this action wasn’t taken due to the protest or actual actions, it was an action against their belief. Likely because these types of thoughts and beliefs could lead to financial damage to Google.
Also reading between the lines of the threat they sent out, the message is pretty clear. If you don’t support Israel you better shut up about it and pretend like you do. If we catch you reading a poster somewhere that’s spreading any other message you will be terminated immediately for thought crimes.
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 it’s OK to stage a protest in the office.
> 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.
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.
The intimidation factor doesn’t 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Funny how everyone thinks it's not okay for other people to opine on what you do, but still reserve the right of it when it's hypothetically you pulling the strings. Self-referential inconsistency leads only to unrealized madness.
> 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
Reading the interview, there's no indication the organizer thought this.
A lot of people, particularly those raised in non democratic countries, or are first generation Americans who grew up in families that came from non democratic countries, have this distorted notion that "democracy" means that every entity in the United States must be governed democratically. They fail to understand that in the United States, "democracy" refers strictly to certain parts of the government. Other entities that exist in society, whether it's for profit companies or non profit entities, can be governed anyway they want as long as they are consistent with government laws -themselves enacted by representatives of the people.
Citizens having a say in deciding who sits at the top of the government is a revolutionary idea. Differentiating government from people is another revolutionary idea. These two ideas triggered America's founding in contraposition to the form of totalitarian governments that had been the norm in Europe until the 1700s.
I fully blame Google for fostering this environment. In fact, Google's two co-founders, particularly Sergey Brin, were very proud of this being in Google's DNA.
Here is the upside. Given Google's power -although its influence to set norms in tech has diminished in recent years- I hope incidents like this set a new normal in which when you go to work for a tech company, you are measured exclusively for your contributions on the technical domain -whether they are technical, sales, or what have you.
I always found the idea of "bringing your whole self to work" complete BS. This example illustrates why.
> I fully blame Google for fostering this environment. In fact, Google's two co-founders, particularly Sergey Brin, were very proud of this being in Google's DNA.
You do know that Brin and Paige both grew up in non-democratic Communist countries, right? Or is this related to your argument?
The corporations are democratic but the voters are the shareholders/board. It is the employee’s 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.
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?
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) ...
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.
“It began in 2021 and provides cloud computing services to Israel—specifically, we’ve recently learned, to the Israeli Ministry of Defense—and though it has faced internal criticism since its inception, efforts against it have naturally intensified since October 7th.”
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?
There’s plenty to criticize about Israel’s campaign in Gaza, but tying objections back to the original date of the Hamas attack is pretty gross.
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.
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 couldn’t recruit. If no action was taken, they’d 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.
- Hamas’ 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 can’t 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 — they still have a draft) are the victims here.
Their only hope is that they’d 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.
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. It’s a waste of human life to cover up dysfunctional governing.
How’s Netanyahu’s corruption trial going? Curious how that timing works out, haven’t heard much about since Israel started leveling Gaza…
That’s not to say Hamas is better, I just don’t expect much of them. They’re not exactly shy about speaking their mind.
For basically the entire rest of world at this point - that day is now unfortunately much more strongly identified with the start of the genocidal campaign begun by the IDF (apparently with logistical support from Google) almost immediately thereafter. Which has unfortunately dwarfed the atrocities committed by Hamas on that day in both scope and intent.
Flag all you want. I am simply pointing out the fact that the net result of Israel's response to events of that day has been to create an enduring public relations disaster for itself (which will take decades to recover from), and to serve as a platform for an equally robust and enduring recruiting campaign for Hamas.
This is very obviously why people are saying "criticism has intensified since October 7th". Not because the criticisms are tied to the events of the day, as such.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not sure “rights” are the correct framing. The protesters surely expected to be fired. They traded their jobs for attention on an issue they cared about. The question of what is a legitimate protest, and when doing illegal things is tactically optimal, is quite a complex issue.
I think the only element of surprise/outrage was that seeming bystanders also got fired.
To understand this, consider Google’s position here; cynically it makes sense to use this as an opportunity for an “Object Lesson” (in Horowitz’s terminology). The decision to fire everyone here was obviously excessive, and that is the point. A proportionate response would not convey the message as clearly to staff. “Bring your whole self to work” is no longer the rule, this is clearly an attempt to signal that employees must yield to corporate values (or go elsewhere if they disagree). In other words the standard expectations from your employer, outside the SV bubble.
All your words seem reasonable with the exception that I do not believe they expect to fired. I have been doing this valley tech thing since before the .bomb and I can tell you I have never seen a more self entitled class of workers in my time here.
Ultimately a whole new generation is finding out about the value of a union. You don’t 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.
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, I’m not sure anti-Israeli sentiment would meet that bar. Usually it’s for economic things, like pay and benefits, that a majority of the union members could actually agree on.
> 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.
Companies don't play by the rules. I see no problem with protests bending rules to make that protest harder to ignore.
>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.
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.
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.
Why should the people that actively work to support the Israeli government’s ethnic cleaning campaign be afforded luxuries like a vandalism free work place? You think that higher ups at google felt threatened? I can’t imagine how you’d characterize the feelings of families living and dying in Gaza right now.
the targets of the protests are nice and comfortable on the other side of the world as they materially contribute to the chaos and terror in the Middle East - if the protestors deserve to face the consequences of their actions, why shouldn’t the collaborators being protested? Where are their consequences, eh?
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh 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.
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.
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.
Not only are they using novel AI-driven target selection technology, they changed the 'acceptable collateral damage' from 0 to 25 civilians per fighter for the recent genocide, without adding humans to the analysis loop.
This is AI driven genocide and HN should be paying full attention.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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 indiscriminate—people 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.
"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.
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.
People wouldn’t usually get fired for hanging out in someone’s office. All these people have after-hours access and most offices are not locked. It’s *OBVIOUSLY* not about the act of going into an office and locking yourself in or even causing a disruption to one person’s day…
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.
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.
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.
> 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 don’t care how much I agree with their argument, their judgement is lacking. Especially if that is the opening move.
Wait, isn’t every protest political? And given the fact facial recognition exists, as well as recording devices, and power regimes tend to rise and fall, so what’s 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.
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).
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.
Readit News
If the company continues cleaning house and gets back to their mission then maybe there's still hope for them.
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
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.
Nobody wants to live in a totalizing democracy.
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 it’s 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?
We can certainly argue competence and alignment. - And soon enough we reach the issue of who the voters choose to represent them...
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
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.
These protests don't happen in a vacuum. The entire purpose is to disrupt day to day work and make people take notice.
Dead Comment
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.
(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.)
Someone walked by the sit-in, talked to the people protesting, security checked their badge and they got fired.
That seems pretty fascist to me. It also makes it quite clear that this action wasn’t taken due to the protest or actual actions, it was an action against their belief. Likely because these types of thoughts and beliefs could lead to financial damage to Google.
Also reading between the lines of the threat they sent out, the message is pretty clear. If you don’t support Israel you better shut up about it and pretend like you do. If we catch you reading a poster somewhere that’s spreading any other message you will be terminated immediately for thought crimes.
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.
In fact it's damn near mandatory. Everyone has a duty to prevent genocide, legally and morally.
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.
We are in a pretty politically charged environment right now. Opinions and temperatures can run hot against the out groups.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
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?
Reading the interview, there's no indication the organizer thought this.
Citizens having a say in deciding who sits at the top of the government is a revolutionary idea. Differentiating government from people is another revolutionary idea. These two ideas triggered America's founding in contraposition to the form of totalitarian governments that had been the norm in Europe until the 1700s.
I fully blame Google for fostering this environment. In fact, Google's two co-founders, particularly Sergey Brin, were very proud of this being in Google's DNA.
Here is the upside. Given Google's power -although its influence to set norms in tech has diminished in recent years- I hope incidents like this set a new normal in which when you go to work for a tech company, you are measured exclusively for your contributions on the technical domain -whether they are technical, sales, or what have you.
I always found the idea of "bringing your whole self to work" complete BS. This example illustrates why.
You do know that Brin and Paige both grew up in non-democratic Communist countries, right? Or is this related to your argument?
Deleted Comment
If corporate jobs aren't democratic, what kind of political organisation are they under?
Those people are probably long gone from Google but if any are left, why increase the chances of them leaving?
why not? shouldn’t it be?
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.
“It began in 2021 and provides cloud computing services to Israel—specifically, we’ve recently learned, to the Israeli Ministry of Defense—and though it has faced internal criticism since its inception, efforts against it have naturally intensified since October 7th.”
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?
There’s plenty to criticize about Israel’s campaign in Gaza, but tying objections back to the original date of the Hamas attack is pretty gross.
Well, it is Israel who is killing thousands of civilians. Hamas was stopped at approximately one thousand, but there is no one to stop Israel.
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.
- Hamas had a < 20% approval rating before the attacks, and couldn’t recruit. If no action was taken, they’d 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.
- Hamas’ 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 can’t 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 — they still have a draft) are the victims here.
Their only hope is that they’d 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.
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. It’s a waste of human life to cover up dysfunctional governing.
How’s Netanyahu’s corruption trial going? Curious how that timing works out, haven’t heard much about since Israel started leveling Gaza…
That’s not to say Hamas is better, I just don’t expect much of them. They’re not exactly shy about speaking their mind.
Dead Comment
For basically the entire rest of world at this point - that day is now unfortunately much more strongly identified with the start of the genocidal campaign begun by the IDF (apparently with logistical support from Google) almost immediately thereafter. Which has unfortunately dwarfed the atrocities committed by Hamas on that day in both scope and intent.
Flag all you want. I am simply pointing out the fact that the net result of Israel's response to events of that day has been to create an enduring public relations disaster for itself (which will take decades to recover from), and to serve as a platform for an equally robust and enduring recruiting campaign for Hamas.
This is very obviously why people are saying "criticism has intensified since October 7th". Not because the criticisms are tied to the events of the day, as such.
"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.
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.
Dead Comment
If Google had employees protesting against BLM they would also had been fired.
Were there BLM protests inside Google's offices?
(And yeah, he did get dragged for it.)
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.
I think the only element of surprise/outrage was that seeming bystanders also got fired.
To understand this, consider Google’s position here; cynically it makes sense to use this as an opportunity for an “Object Lesson” (in Horowitz’s terminology). The decision to fire everyone here was obviously excessive, and that is the point. A proportionate response would not convey the message as clearly to staff. “Bring your whole self to work” is no longer the rule, this is clearly an attempt to signal that employees must yield to corporate values (or go elsewhere if they disagree). In other words the standard expectations from your employer, outside the SV bubble.
Companies don't play by the rules. I see no problem with protests bending rules to make that protest harder to ignore.
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.
And of course, if you vandalise your employers property, of course you should expect to be fired.
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/google-fires-28-for-anti-isra...
Why should the people that actively work to support the Israeli government’s ethnic cleaning campaign be afforded luxuries like a vandalism free work place? You think that higher ups at google felt threatened? I can’t imagine how you’d characterize the feelings of families living and dying in Gaza right now.
the targets of the protests are nice and comfortable on the other side of the world as they materially contribute to the chaos and terror in the Middle East - if the protestors deserve to face the consequences of their actions, why shouldn’t the collaborators being protested? Where are their consequences, eh?
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh 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.
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
This is AI driven genocide and HN should be paying full attention.
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.
Deleted Comment
The Google constitution does not give employees the right to free speech or the right to stage public protests.
> IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely indiscriminate—people 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?
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.
You can be very, very sure.
Dead Comment
Totally disagree. If someone decides the way to get my attention is occupying my office and scribbling on my whiteboard, I don’t care how much I agree with their argument, their judgement is lacking. Especially if that is the opening move.
Could anybody explain what’s going on there?
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
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).
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.