[HN Gopher] I spoke with a Google worker fired for protesting $1...
___________________________________________________________________
I spoke with a Google worker fired for protesting $1.2B Israel
contract
Author : KittenInABox
Score : 119 points
Date : 2024-04-19 14:12 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thehandbasket.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thehandbasket.co)
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| Remember folks "don't be evil"...
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| To be fair, they long removed that line so you can't shove it
| in their face anymore.
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| Yes they have, and that makes it even more of a reason to rub
| their corporate face in it.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| To be fair and accurate, they changed the line from "don't do
| evil" to (paraphrasing) "Googlers shouldn't don't be evil".
| Putting the responsibility onto the employee from a central
| core principle of the organisation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
| IshKebab wrote:
| Well that's why they got rid of the slogan. Plenty of people
| would not consider it to be evil.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| From my perspective, the Jedi are evil. And by Jedi I mean
| people who launch terrorist attacks, do honor killings, and
| keep women in bags because they adhere to the most barbaric
| of the Iron Age religions today. But they only do that
| because they're oppressed, like the 35 other dictatorships,
| kingdoms, and theocracies around Israel. The 36th will be
| different!
| wutwutwat wrote:
| I'd imagine there was a serious reason for them removing that
| when they rebranded. Google has done military contracts from
| the get go though, using AI trained by plebs solving captchas.
| We've been complicit the entire time.
| 0898 wrote:
| It's noticeable that everybody in this protest is wearing a face
| mask, to the point it feels political.
|
| Could anybody explain what's going on there?
| davidgerard wrote:
| they're indoors, dude. COVID is still here.
| throwaway920102 wrote:
| 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).
| simoncion wrote:
| > 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:
| 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:
| 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).
| seti0Cha wrote:
| 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?
| snapcaster wrote:
| Are you going to wear a mask indoors forever?
| falcolas wrote:
| 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.).
| Ajay-p wrote:
| 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.
| simoncion wrote:
| 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.
| david_allison wrote:
| Anonymity + non-threatening nature, and nobody would want the
| optics of suggesting that people shouldn't be free to wear a
| facemask
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| 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.
| graemep wrote:
| It is weird to see people still wearing facemasks, but "it
| feels political" is an odd reaction to an essentially political
| protest.
| 0898 wrote:
| I understand the protest is political. I'm wondering why
| they're wearing masks.
| harimau777 wrote:
| At least in the US, wearing a mask while protesting is common
| in order to avoid harassment.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| 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.
| dazc wrote:
| 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?
| paxys wrote:
| Uh, protestors have been wearing face masks since protesting
| first became a thing. What is so weird about it?
| redleader55 wrote:
| Why is no one talking about the fact they locked themselves in
| the CTO's office and this is why they were fired?
| orlp wrote:
| > 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.
|
| So is this a lie?
| Kalium wrote:
| "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.
| itsdrewmiller wrote:
| It seems like you are implying it is incorrect or
| incomplete - do you have any evidence to the contrary or
| context to add?
| Kalium wrote:
| 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:
| 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?
| Kalium wrote:
| 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.
| Vegenoid wrote:
| 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".
| paxys wrote:
| Do you have any evidence that Google's version is
| incorrect or incomplete? We are just hearing two sides of
| the story.
| everforward wrote:
| 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 Google's data-gathering wheelhouse
| to disprove that.
| wilsynet wrote:
| 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.
| pydry wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| jquery wrote:
| 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:
| > _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.
| avidiax wrote:
| 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:
| 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:
| No but the US one does, and its the only one that matters
| in this particular case.
| scheme271 wrote:
| 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.
| cbHXBY1D wrote:
| Maybe because the article is an interview with someone at the
| NYC sit-in?
| smcl wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| ancorevard wrote:
| 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.
| Ajay-p wrote:
| 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:
| Remember how much public beatings Coinbase received when they
| announced they were going to be a mission and merit driven
| company?
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| >Imagine Google saying this during peak BLM.
|
| If Google had employees protesting against BLM they would also
| had been fired.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Google fired that guy who wrote the gender manifesto so its not
| like this is anything new really
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| I guess the lesson is, don't stick out your neck unless you
| absolutely have to.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| Absolutely.
|
| Sex, Politics, and Religion should be third rails at the
| office, imo.
| klyrs wrote:
| 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.
| paxys wrote:
| > Imagine Google saying this during peak BLM.
|
| Were there BLM protests inside Google's offices?
| paxys wrote:
| 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.
| theptip wrote:
| Do you have references for the "intimidated and threatened"
| bit? Is there a claim it went beyond a peaceful protest?
| paxys wrote:
| 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.
| o11c wrote:
| If standing around counts as "intimidation", what does
| "we're going to bomb your neighborhood" count as?
|
| This isn't theoretical.
| tonfreed wrote:
| Ok, so should James Demore be reinstated? All the did was
| post something that no one had to even read on an
| internal page.
| lupusreal wrote:
| So if bomb threats are intimidation, nothing short of
| bomb threats can also be intimidation? Explain yourself.
| o11c wrote:
| Did I say that?
|
| No, I was referring to the fact that Israel is bombing
| every place where Palestinians live, and Google is
| helping them do it.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Actively bombing people, as Israel is doing, is far more
| than intimidation. In my view they're committing a
| genocide. But how does this make the other not
| intimidation? If you weren't implying that the other
| doesn't qualify as intimidation, then your comment makes
| zero sense.
| neilk wrote:
| 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.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| 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.
| infamouscow wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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:
| The poster is alluding to Project Veritas I think.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Aren't they a media firm that publishes exposes? I don't
| think that quite fits for a business intelligence firm.
| no_exit wrote:
| lmao
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > 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?
| racional wrote:
| _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:
| 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.)
| drewmcarthur wrote:
| > your corporate job isn't a democracy
|
| why not? shouldn't it be?
| faust201 wrote:
| May be you should open a company hire some of these IT
| workers and then post the results. (not sarcasm but genuinely
| to prove)
| pixl97 wrote:
| 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:
| i agree companies shouldn't have political sway, but why
| shouldn't the place you spend so much time and effort for
| be democratically governed? what's the argument that
| government should be, but industry shouldn't?
|
| that's the whole basis of Elizabeth Anderson's "Private
| Government"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _why shouldn't the place you spend so much time and
| effort for be democratically governed?_
|
| It's inefficient [1].
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
| drewmcarthur wrote:
| good point. why did all these countries become
| democracies in the first place? we should revert to
| autocracy /s
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| 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)
| ...
| paxys wrote:
| It _can_ be, but this one isn 't.
| wilsynet wrote:
| 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.
| nocoiner wrote:
| From the article:
|
| "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.
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| everforward wrote:
| Naomi Wolf is as prescient today as she was in 2007: https://
| en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_Letter_o...
|
| 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.
| klyrs wrote:
| 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.
| yencabulator wrote:
| Perhaps it's just that increased awareness brings a larger
| audience, and not related to the specific cause for the
| increased awareness.
| uneekname wrote:
| 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.
| elAhmo wrote:
| Purpose of flagging it to not have a discussion about this as
| it sheds a light about what is happening.
| ryandrake wrote:
| 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?
| jules-jules wrote:
| Dang has to rescue pretty much every single Israel post as
| they are getting mass flagged to oblivion.
| thegrim33 wrote:
| 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?
| dunekid wrote:
| 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:
| > The GPUs running the Genocide AI
|
| This is why the submissions tend to get flagged.
| Ajay-p wrote:
| 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:
| 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.
| belorn wrote:
| The Israel-Hamas 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:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| "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:
| 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?
| cooloo wrote:
| So you lock yourself in executive room , what do you think
| will happen?
| kortilla wrote:
| There isn't anything intellectually interesting about this.
| It's drama over a very long standing political lightning rod
| belligeront wrote:
| 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?
|
| https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
| greenyoda wrote:
| That article already had a huge discussion when it came
| out: 1418 points, 1601 comments.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245
|
| And there have already been two big discussions about the
| Google protests, covering the employees' arrests and their
| subsequent firings:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40060532
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40072295
| Phiwise_ wrote:
| Perhaps someone should spin up
| intellectuallyinteresting.ycombinator.com?
| elAhmo wrote:
| 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:
| 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:
| https://time.com/6966102/google-contract-israel-defense-mini...
|
| Google has a set of AI principles:
| https://ai.google/responsibility/principles/
|
| 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.
| pavon wrote:
| 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:
| 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?
| https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
|
| Do you have an evidence that they aren't using Project
| Nimbus for this? Spoiler: you do not - none of us do.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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:
| You're implying Palestine only exists online?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I'm implying that the presentation of "facts" that would get
| a bunch of rainbow flag waving leftists to support a group of
| right wing ultra conservative theists only exists online.
|
| We have hard lined blue haired liberals locking themselves in
| offices to protect a terrorist run state whose populace still
| sees women as men's property and homosexuality as a death
| sentence.
|
| Everyday day I grow happier and happier that I realized the
| cool-aid of social media was being drugged, causing people to
| completely lose their mind.
| klyrs wrote:
| > I'm implying that the presentation of "facts" that would
| get a bunch of rainbow flag waving leftists to support a
| group of right wing ultra conservative theists only exists
| online.
|
| Leftists are still supporting the Israeli government? News
| to me. And funny thing about your reference to rainbow
| flags. We queers were scapegoated in the Holocaust too.
| Only, the international community didn't think we deserved
| our own country, or much of any right to life, for that
| matter.
|
| If only... it were possible to believe in the rights of
| people, without giving full-throated support for the
| government they live under.
|
| I believe that Palestinians, Israelis, Jews, and Muslims
| all have a right to life and peace. That just ain't the
| same as supporting Netanyahu's government, nor Hamas. But
| speaking of supporting Hamas!
|
| Netanyahu has been supporting Hamas for decades now. So why
| are people so critical of the left? Netanyahu is one of
| yours! And he's got a helluva lot more influence than some
| protesters in a corporate office.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Sure, lets let Israel topple so we can have another
| Muslim theocracy. Women dressed in bags, beat by their
| husbands, child marriages and homosexuals dragged out and
| stoned in public. Palestinian
|
| You can fight for that. I'm sticking to broader fight for
| equality, even if proponents of old world bigoted beliefs
| insist on using human shields.
|
| Please, wake up, wake up.
|
| https://reason.com/2023/10/27/the-contradictions-of-
| queers-f...
| klyrs wrote:
| Again, why are queers the big bad scapegoat when
| Netanyahu has supported Hamas for so many years?
|
| I know folks on the right like to make fun of leftists
| because we tend to get killed everywhere in the world
| except for a few safe havens. Did you know, this shit
| isn't news to us? I get verbally and physically assaulted
| in radical progressive Vancouver BC for being visibly
| queer. You think I fucking care? My _life_ is fucking
| table stakes. We 're the default scapegoat, and have been
| since before Jews left Israel the first time. Big fucking
| deal.
|
| Yeah, I want the conflict to end. I want the people of
| Israel and Palestine to cast down their governments and
| live in peace.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your deflection. I
| don't see how I am scapegoating queers.
|
| This conflict has been going on for decades, Palestine is
| in a position where they cannot win having wasted 75
| years throwing rocks at Israel while Israel focused on
| diplomacy and growth.
|
| So simply put, gun to my head having to choose which
| country will prevail going forward, I'm going to choose
| the one that doesn't execute gay people (with wide public
| support, mind you), even if it kind of sucks otherwise.
| klyrs wrote:
| You're the one who brought queers into the conversation
| with your "rainbow flag waving" swipe. If you don't wanna
| talk to dogs, don't blow the dogwhistle.
|
| > Palestine is in a position where they cannot win having
| wasted 75 years throwing rocks at Israel
|
| Israel paid for those rocks. Why?
| hannofcart wrote:
| Thank God for us "blue haired liberals" who fight for the
| basic human rights of even those people who hold views and
| beliefs that we find deplorable.
|
| Rest assured that once the 2000lb bombs stop falling on
| innocent civilians, and once they pick up whatever is left
| of their lives, we'll be sure to promptly censure them for
| their homophobic views.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| If you cared about Palestinians, you would be fighting
| for Hamas to issue uniforms, so that civilians and
| soldiers could be clearly recognized.
|
| What did Ukraine do when Russian invaded? Pulled out
| civilians and issued uniforms to men.
|
| What did Hamas do? Force civilians to stay in their
| homes, use those homes as operations points, give guns
| but no uniforms to men.
| klyrs wrote:
| > you would be fighting for Hamas to issue uniforms
|
| How exactly does one fight for that? These googlers saw
| an opportunity -- their employer took a contract from a
| belligerent in the conflict -- and they acted on that
| opportunity to protest. What opportunity do any of us
| have to influence Hamas's sartorial choices?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| None, because if Hamas issued uniforms they would lose
| the war. Their main source of support is making sure
| civilians die. They do the opposite of what every non-
| delusional theocratic hellhole does, and purposely mix
| their civilians and military.
| klyrs wrote:
| >>> you would be fighting for Hamas to issue uniforms
|
| >> How exactly does one fight for that?
|
| > [you can't]
|
| Good to see you acknowledge that your original appeal was
| not in good faith.
| no_exit wrote:
| > so that civilians and soldiers could be clearly
| recognized.
|
| Didn't seem to help the WCK crew who got a bomb dropped
| right through the logo on top of their car.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| The fact that these entitled employees felt it was appropriate to
| bring their personal politics to the workplace shows how bad
| Google's 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 doesn't 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 it's voices like these that feel most comfortable to push
| their personal politics on others in the workplace.
| simoncion wrote:
| > 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:
| > I expect the first shot was fired with the Google+ Real
| Names policy,
|
| What is this about?
| sbarre wrote:
| Pretty disappointed to see this topic get flagged.
| aaa_aaa wrote:
| 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?
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I doubt anything particular compelled them. It's a customer
| with a business opportunity. Why would you say no to them? If
| you're asking why Google isn't supporting the other side in the
| same way, it's probably because the other side is really Iran
| (who is thought to have planned the Oct 7 massacre), and they
| are sanctioned.
| dunekid wrote:
| I think you have a point. We should look at ICJ rulings, WCK
| staff and other Journalists' killing, the destruction of
| hospitals, schools, even blowing up museums, in Gaza. Also
| the detention of thousands of people, including minors. And
| maybe, just maybe, sanction and cut off the apartheid regime.
| Google can then pull out much easily.
| no_exit wrote:
| > Iran (who is thought to have planned the Oct 7 massacre)
|
| There is no credible evidence of this.
| Kalium wrote:
| 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.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| 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:
| Not doubting but do you have a link?
| pavon wrote:
| 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] https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/18/google-
| fires-28-employees-...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
| captn3m0 wrote:
| https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/israel-
| government...
|
| > 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.
|
| > "According to the tender requirements, the answer is no,"
| he said, adding that the contracts also bar the firms from
| denying services to particular government entities.
| paxys wrote:
| If Google performed morality tests on its customers before
| selling to them then the company would have exactly $0 in
| revenue.
| dunekid wrote:
| 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.
| looknee wrote:
| Why is this post flagged?
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Because lotsa google turfers hang out here
| mingus88 wrote:
| 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 person's explicit goal was to make a disturbance and get
| arrested. I can't think of a single workplace that wouldn't let
| you go if that's what you decided to do instead of your job
| duties
| archagon wrote:
| Not if you work in a cooperative. Maybe we should explore forms
| of corporate leadership that are not quite so authoritarian.
| teddyh wrote:
| 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
| 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.
|
| > 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-in--we had no reason to think that
| they would be retaliated against.
|
| So Google knew everyone who even _talked_ to these people.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Which definition of the word "fact" are you using?
| teddyh wrote:
| Fact as in "a piece of information, presumed to be true
| unless conflicting information is presented"?
| paxys wrote:
| Ok, here's a fact - all these employees were protesting and
| Google fired them with reason. Are you going to presume
| that is true?
| amitbat wrote:
| 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
| egberts1 wrote:
| "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." --
| Joshua, W.O.P.R., "War Games"
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| 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.
| tonfreed wrote:
| 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:
| We can read some of his thoughts in this very interview. He did
| not expect Google to fire him for his actions.
| matrix87 wrote:
| I'm sure the people involved are utterly irreplaceable. They
| really showed google with this one!
| RickJWagner wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-19 23:01 UTC)