Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Video Shows Google Executives' Candid Reaction To Trump Victory (theguardian.com)
A number of Slashdot users have shared a leaked Google video from Breitbart, revealing the candid reactions of company executives to Donald Trump's unexpected victory in 2016. The Guardian summarizes: In an hour-long conversation, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, chief executive Sundar Pichai, and executives Kent Walker, Ruth Porat and Eileen Noughton offered their reflections on the election, sought to reassure employees about issues such as immigration status and benefits for same-sex partners, and answered questions on topics ranging from filter bubbles and political polarization to encryption and net neutrality. The executives' reactions ranged from the emotional to the philosophical to the purely pragmatic. Porat appeared near tears in discussing her open support for Hillary Clinton and her father, who was a refugee. Walker discussed global political trends toward nationalism, populism and xenophobia. Pichai noted that the company was already "thoughtfully engaging" with Trump's transition team. While Breitbart argues the video shows evidence of Google's inherent bias against Republicans, Google says the executives are simply sharing their "personal views" and that it has no political bias. It does beg the question, should politics be discussed in the workplace? Longtime Slashdot reader emil writes in response to the video: [...] Disregarding the completely inappropriate expression of partisan views in the workplace, the video claims that "history is our side." These executives appear to have forgotten the incredible tumult in the distant past of the U.S. The last election was not an electoral tie that was thrown into the house of representatives (as was the election of 1800). The last election did not open a civil war as happened in 1861 when Lincoln took office. The last election did not open war with Great Britain, and will likely not precipitate a new set of proposed constitutional amendments to curb presidential power as did either of James Madison's terms in office (War of 1812, Hartford Convention). There may be a time for tears, and a time for hugs, but that time cannot be in the workplace. Most Fortune 500 employees took the news of the latest president elect with quiet perseverance in their professional settings regardless of their leanings, and it is time for Google to encourage the same. "At a regularly scheduled all-hands meeting, some Google employees and executives expressed their own personal views in the aftermath of a long and divisive election season," Google said in a statement. "For over 20 years, everyone at Google has been able to freely express their opinions at these meetings. Nothing was said at that meeting, or any other meeting, to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products. To the contrary, our products are built for everyone, and we design them with extraordinary care to be a trustworthy source of information for everyone, without regard to political viewpoint."
What I find amusing about that is that the first time I heard the phrase "low information voter", I was a kid riding in my dad's pickup truck as he listened to Rush Limbaugh. For years I assumed that was one of his coined phrases. I think it's natural whichever side you are on to assume the others on the other side of the line are the ignorant ones.
"We want to encourage diversity of ideas."
JAMES DAMORE
"Whoopsie!"
Man they need an AWFUL big shovel for all that bullshit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I must admit that given what i'm watching and listening to now on the session, it seemed to be more of an issue in extreme disappointment in who was chosen as president, not the party or political lines.
... not over a political party. It expressed concerns over the candidate who won and his generally rash and almost random trial and error approach to everything. Trump has shown throughout the past two years of office that other than manipulating people to build one of the world's largest monuments in history with his name on it, his approach to politics is to just wing it and then just throw some duct tape on. I'm not 100% sure this is the wrong way to handle politics, but he's not nice to people he should be working with but disagrees with. He's actually really mean and he alienates people who he should be embracing. There's nothing wrong with saying "Dude, I love you... you're great! Now, understand, I'm going to make this change and if I'm wrong, you can say I told you so, but I have to try this". Instead, he simply lashes out and attacks.
I am absolutely disgusted by the state of both major political parties today. Consider that there were dozens of candidates that made it quite far down the road in this election. And yet, when it came time to go to the polls, the American people were left with only two candidates because of the failed system.
You asked an excellent question. "Would you argue it as liberal?". I think that it's not an issue of whether it's conservative or liberal. I think that the issue is that we attempt to demonize one or the other. It is no longer socially acceptable to be a little bit of both. For example, what about a if you're a wealthy white Christian male who goes to church every Sunday, prays, but also believes it's not his right to have a say on abortion whether he approves of the action or not and also drives an electric car because he believes in global warming. This is a person who is clearly by today's standards someone who no longer has a home in America. See, that person is required to be either conservative or liberal though the liberals are probably against his economic and family policies. And saying you're Christian in Silicon Valley is such a big thing that there are TV shows about how big a thing this is. Yet, that same person could never express their more liberal beliefs out loud in a place like Texas.
American has polarized and things like Turducken is considered not only something fun to say... a lot, it's also entirely normal and acceptable. Yet, the human turducken which is a little bit of a mix of everything is no longer allowed because it's not within lines with the American way which is "Please stand in box A or box B... pick a side... you're either part of the solution or part of the problem... etc..."
This video expressed concerns
This is a man who came into the presidential office with such thin skin that he can't handle the attacks made against him by American corporations who exist only by the ability to churn and spew controversy... meaning the press. The news papers are in the business of selling news papers and because Trump is so incredibly outlandish, they can sell A LOT of them. Because of systems he himself strongly embraces and exploited extensively to become the president in the first place by using those systems against his opponents, the entire news world has transitioned from reporting facts and news, to publishing a great deal of supposition as well as opinions. News outlets have always shared their opinions. Walter Cronkite was an excellent example of an altruistic man who would break down and cry when something moved him and his voice and sincerity would move the entire world. But today, we don't publish this. We publish articles that take pot shots. They perform hit and run journalism with a focus on writing the headline that will sell today's paper.
Consider a news source like "The Register" who has a policy of writing absolutely nonsensical headlines as click bait. I've been reading them