Googlers were upset when benefits were cut back, they were upset at layoffs, and now they're upset when their very well-paying employer actually does deals that bring in $$$$!?
They seem to be protesting for the right to filter their employer's deals according to their personal morality. It doesn't work like that, not even at non-profits.
However, whether a non-profit or a trillion-dollar tech giant, the employee can leave. E.g. the guy who made the comment below ... why is he working there? Just leave! (Can't find a 'nice enough' employer also willing to pay $500K+? That's something to reflect upon.)
> “The fact that I am receiving money from Google and Israel is paying Google -- I am receiving part of that money, and that weighed very heavily on me.”
“Protesters in Sunnyvale sat in Kurian’s office for more than nine hours until their arrests, writing demands on Kurian’s whiteboard…”
Regardless of your views, what an ineffective way to exert influence. Mindblowing that Google’s standards have fallen so low that this is the best idea this lot could come up with.
That assumes that this is an attempt to exert influence, rather than a psychologically self-serving act, or worse... an attempt at gathering clout. So many of these protests seems entirely geared towards the latter.
Strong disagree. Unlike you, they stuck their necks out for something they believe in, in defense of people who are utterly powerless.
As to doubts about whether such tactics are effective or not - as a basic point of history, this is exactly how the divestment movement against South African apartheid got its legs in the early 1980s. Of course the exact same complaints were made at the time ("They're just whining, it's all about self-promotion", etc). Invariably by people who were, themselves, doing nothing at all.
Being as their government has long since written these people off, and blatantly so (so it can go full tilt on its expansionist fantasies in the occupied territories instead) -- you're right, the hostages are unfortunately quite powerless as well.
> they stuck their necks out for something they believe in
Walking into a remote volcano to protest climate change is brave. It’s also stupid and ineffective.
This protest took all the downsides of bridge blocking and robbed it of its one advantage: visibility. The sole direct witness of their outburst was one leader. Instead of leveraging their wealth, technical ability, connections and location in Silicon Valley, they took a tactic used by those with nothing more than their bodies and deployed it incompetently.
Resigning en masse, holding a press conference with a sympathetic lawmaker or activist, and offering their technical skills (I presume they have technical skills) to a Palestinian non-profit would have been vastly more impactful. This was, at best, a selfish search for absolution. At worst, it was an attention-seeking outburst.
> Visibility is in the news and social platforms, not cars seeing your sign
Every person in those cars who shares a photo amplifies your message. That translates into media, including social media, prominence.
There are other ways to get that prominence. This, where the aftermath is sitting in jail, it doesn’t appear they maintained even a single confederate to do press and promo, is not finding purchase.
I think most of the cars are irrelevant, with photos of a bumper in front of them, and the commuter posts aren't in large enough numbers for organic social propagation.
These things, as I understand them, are highly choreographed, with photographers and calls to media outlets. The protesters dont even point their signs at the cars.[1] [2]
Commuters stuck in cars are simply a hook for the traditional and social media to run with. A story about a CEO office can be a similar hook, perhaps moreso when there was a story about traffic blockage a day or two before.
Can you point to the media or social media impact of this protest?
I asked a handful of Googlers I know if they'd heard about it. They hadn't. The only reason this crossed my radar is HN. I will not remember it tomorrow. (Granted, I don't remember what the last lot who blocked a bridge in New York or San Francisco were angling for. But I remember what they were doing yesterday. Because it came up in mulitple news feeds and again in conversations, because it came up in multiple news feeds with my friends.)
to be clear, the main point I was trying to make was that the penetration is more about the marketing and public engagement in the story, not the direct meatbag spectators.
I agree that in actuality, the bridge protest did get more coverage and engagement. however, wonder how much of that was perceived favorably. My perception is that traffic shutdowns get a lot of views specifically because it outrages people who empathize more with the commuters. I know it is easier to imagine myself as someone late for work in traffic on the 880, than blocking a highway, or in Gaza.
For what it is worth, I did see the office protest in a non HN feed when it was ongoing, although I dont recall which. I searched, but couldnt find early coverage because the story is generating increasing coverage do to the arrest, and then subsequent firings.[1]
I suspect your original proposal of resignation and press conference would get the least coverage and engagement of all three options, simply because it lacks the emotional hook/outrage component.
So if Google ignores their demands (which is a certainty), do you think all these employees who so strongly believe in their cause will quit their jobs and stop supporting the corporate machine or just forget about it and continue to enjoy their paychecks and RSU vests?
They're not powerless when they're bombing Israel's civilian citizens in an undeclared war. They didn't look powerless gunning down civilians at a music festival either. Further they didn't seem excessively powerless when they were parading around the corpses of freshly killed civilians who were without question minding their own business.
I don't recall them being powerless when they turned down a peace deal either.
To my untrained eye they kinda seem a lot like terrorists and murderers.
Politically active Googlers and Meta employees have to be some of the most annoying people in tech.
Google and Meta are stalking us all over the Internet, and leaking personally identifiable information to their ad services customers.
Google is destroying the free Web by crushing competition in non-competitive ways.
Meta was just shown to spy on competitors.
Google and Meta are participating in a wave of destruction of information on the Internet via generative AI. Generated garbage is polluting the Internet.
Meta's participation in the mental infection of youth worldwide is crazy. How many young people are committing suicide or experiencing mental health issues because of the platforms and algorithms this company has created?
These are all aspects that these employees are aiding and abetting by choosing to sit idly by. I tell Google and Meta recruiters that I'm not interested when they reach out partially because I do not want to participate in these grievances.
I became politically aware when I was 18 in 1975 and went to college. I quickly concluded that the Israel/Palestian problem was an intractable problem with Palestians used as pawns in a global game I didn't understand and as a non-Jew, non-Muslim I hadn't the inside knowledge to have an educated opinion, much less come up with a solution to what still seems to me like a family fight. Nothing has changed as far as I can tell, so I was right, it's an intractable problem and I am better off putting my brain to use solving problems I can actually do something about. It's annoying that privileged American kids with big salaries are telling me that I lack moral clarity or the will to fight to solve this problem. Good luck is all I can say.
Fourteen years ago; John Safran and his documentary crew visit an Israeli and Palestinian sperm bank
In this week's premiere episode, Safran executed a covert donor switch at sperm banks in Israel and the West Bank that resulted in Palestinian sperm being noted as a Jewish donation, and his own Jewish sperm under an Arabic name; it was a preposterous quest to create a ''Jelestinian''.
29 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 63.6 ms ] threadPer the article, that's very obviously not what they were protesting about.
However, whether a non-profit or a trillion-dollar tech giant, the employee can leave. E.g. the guy who made the comment below ... why is he working there? Just leave! (Can't find a 'nice enough' employer also willing to pay $500K+? That's something to reflect upon.)
> “The fact that I am receiving money from Google and Israel is paying Google -- I am receiving part of that money, and that weighed very heavily on me.”
Regardless of your views, what an ineffective way to exert influence. Mindblowing that Google’s standards have fallen so low that this is the best idea this lot could come up with.
As to doubts about whether such tactics are effective or not - as a basic point of history, this is exactly how the divestment movement against South African apartheid got its legs in the early 1980s. Of course the exact same complaints were made at the time ("They're just whining, it's all about self-promotion", etc). Invariably by people who were, themselves, doing nothing at all.
You are talking about the hostages?
Walking into a remote volcano to protest climate change is brave. It’s also stupid and ineffective.
This protest took all the downsides of bridge blocking and robbed it of its one advantage: visibility. The sole direct witness of their outburst was one leader. Instead of leveraging their wealth, technical ability, connections and location in Silicon Valley, they took a tactic used by those with nothing more than their bodies and deployed it incompetently.
Resigning en masse, holding a press conference with a sympathetic lawmaker or activist, and offering their technical skills (I presume they have technical skills) to a Palestinian non-profit would have been vastly more impactful. This was, at best, a selfish search for absolution. At worst, it was an attention-seeking outburst.
Visibility is in the news and social platforms, not cars seeing your sign
Every person in those cars who shares a photo amplifies your message. That translates into media, including social media, prominence.
There are other ways to get that prominence. This, where the aftermath is sitting in jail, it doesn’t appear they maintained even a single confederate to do press and promo, is not finding purchase.
These things, as I understand them, are highly choreographed, with photographers and calls to media outlets. The protesters dont even point their signs at the cars.[1] [2]
Commuters stuck in cars are simply a hook for the traditional and social media to run with. A story about a CEO office can be a similar hook, perhaps moreso when there was a story about traffic blockage a day or two before.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/protest-...
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/protesters-block-880-...
I asked a handful of Googlers I know if they'd heard about it. They hadn't. The only reason this crossed my radar is HN. I will not remember it tomorrow. (Granted, I don't remember what the last lot who blocked a bridge in New York or San Francisco were angling for. But I remember what they were doing yesterday. Because it came up in mulitple news feeds and again in conversations, because it came up in multiple news feeds with my friends.)
I agree that in actuality, the bridge protest did get more coverage and engagement. however, wonder how much of that was perceived favorably. My perception is that traffic shutdowns get a lot of views specifically because it outrages people who empathize more with the commuters. I know it is easier to imagine myself as someone late for work in traffic on the 880, than blocking a highway, or in Gaza.
For what it is worth, I did see the office protest in a non HN feed when it was ongoing, although I dont recall which. I searched, but couldnt find early coverage because the story is generating increasing coverage do to the arrest, and then subsequent firings.[1]
I suspect your original proposal of resignation and press conference would get the least coverage and engagement of all three options, simply because it lacks the emotional hook/outrage component.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&ge...
I don't recall them being powerless when they turned down a peace deal either.
To my untrained eye they kinda seem a lot like terrorists and murderers.
Google and Meta are stalking us all over the Internet, and leaking personally identifiable information to their ad services customers.
Google is destroying the free Web by crushing competition in non-competitive ways.
Meta was just shown to spy on competitors.
Google and Meta are participating in a wave of destruction of information on the Internet via generative AI. Generated garbage is polluting the Internet.
Meta's participation in the mental infection of youth worldwide is crazy. How many young people are committing suicide or experiencing mental health issues because of the platforms and algorithms this company has created?
These are all aspects that these employees are aiding and abetting by choosing to sit idly by. I tell Google and Meta recruiters that I'm not interested when they reach out partially because I do not want to participate in these grievances.
Please stand with me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuvvfnjgZlM