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."

10 of 558 comments (clear)

  1. Nobody cares what Emil thinks by sabri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Political views are part of life. I don't need Emil to tell me what is appropriate to discuss and what is not. In fact, it is inappropriate for /. to push this stupid silencing agenda. As long as a discussion is respectful, it is appropriate everywhere.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    1. Re:Nobody cares what Emil thinks by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody cares what you think either, and nobody cares what I think. When I'm at work, I'm paid to work, not to politick. I'll share my views and opinions gladly with anyone who asks, and I'll make conversation for the sake of conversation. But I'm not going to parade around with a Trump (or Gary Johnson, as the case was) logo tattooed on my forehead and demand that everyone drop what they're doing to listen to my brilliant treatise on life, the universe, and everything. It would distract me, and my interlocutors, from the work we're being paid to do. That's what makes it unprofessional.

    2. Re:Nobody cares what Emil thinks by c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to admit, I'm slightly curious as to how Emil knows so much about the private reactions of most Fortune 500 executives... I mean, that's some NSA level business espionage there.

      I suppose Emil could be full of shit, but that would be highly irregular for a long-time Slashdot reader.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  2. The campaign rhetoric was scary... by Octorian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump's campaign rhetoric really scared the crap out of many people. And not in a "OMG, Republicans nonsense!" way. In a "Are we going to start having to hide Muslim families in our basements?" way.

    At this point, I think the main thing protecting everyone is the sheer incompetence and disorganization of his entire administration. Its clear now that he's far more interested Tweeting and continuing to hold those campaign rallies than in actually doing the job of President.

    1. Re:The campaign rhetoric was scary... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's the thing though. The democrats ginned up roughly the same amount of fear and apprehension over Romney, W, Dole, Bush 41, and Reagan before him.

      This wasn't at al l the same. You had people like George Will, and other moderate Republicans saying that Trump wasn't a normal Republican who they could support. I've spent every election since 1996 telling people on both ends of the political spectrum that it wouldn't be so bad if the candidate from the major opposing party won. There's one exception; this last election, because Trump really did represent a serious threat to the stability and functionality of American democracy and power. That some people cried wolf is not an excuse to ignore when the myriad people who hadn't previously been wolf criers start saying their's a wolf.

    2. Re:The campaign rhetoric was scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's the thing though. The democrats ginned up roughly the same amount of fear and apprehension over Romney, W, Dole, Bush 41, and Reagan before him.

      Bullshit. I know it was called fake news, but I watched the video of Trump saying that if Hillary was elected people should take the 2nd amendment option. Sure, he was probably joking, but you have to really be a right-wing nut job if you think that's like other Republicans. None of the presidents you listed suggested killing (or jailing) their ravels. There are plenty similar examples were I had to look at the videos because I couldn't believe it was possible for Trump to be so awful. I know people legally here who literally left the country after Trump was elected. I've never seen or heard of that before. So, no, something is different this time. Eventually you'll realize who he is and regret your support.

    3. Re:The campaign rhetoric was scary... by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Informative

      Trump's campaign rhetoric really scared the crap out of many people. And not in a "OMG, Republicans nonsense!"

      I seem to recall hearing 6 years of BUSH HITLER WORST PRESIDENT EVER

      He got a reprieve for 2 years because even the Democrats weren't stupid enough to attack him right after 9/11

  3. You made your bed, now lie in it by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Citizens United ruling gave corporations the right to express political views. If you don't like it, you'll have to overturn that ruling with new legislation (and potentially an amendment).

    I feel like the current administration only likes it when the laws work for them, and want to ignore laws that are inconvenient for them. It's the sort of crap that dictators of a banana republic try to pull.

    (not AC because clearly non-partisan. i.e. hopefully I pissed off everyone)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  4. Re:Was an interesting time capsule by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, more data doesn't mean more information.

    Like most words, "information" has many meanings, including in certain contexts entropy. But that's not what "low information voter" refers to. It refers to uniformed voters. You could watch North Korean TV every waking moment and you'd be absorbing plenty of data, but very little information -- in the sense of that which makes you informed.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Diversity of thought . by Chas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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!!!