Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

mancerayder | 731 points

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people.

There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the majority engaged in heckling, ridicule, etc. It was already becoming an echo chamber, and as the majority grew, their tactics grew more petty and vicious. However, this was expected in the politics groups, and you knowingly entered that fray.

What seems to be happening a lot lately is that politics are spilling over into large, global mailing lists which target a whole geographic region, so many people get involved, and when a company has 200k employees and contractors, you will find some outliers in there who will pick nasty fights.

It only makes sense that they're cutting down on something that has turned toxic. It's a bit disappointing to hear, since I personally enjoyed the occasional, honest discussion with smart people of other viewpoints - these good discussions made the much larger number of ridiculous ones, bearable.

oppositelock | 5 years ago

This is pretty strange to me. I've worked in a bunch of very different places, including Intel Corp. and also defense contractors and US government installations, and people generally stayed away from political discussions unless they were around people they already knew were like-minded. The only place I saw political discussion turn really sour was at Intel when we had a contractor who was extremely religious and conservative, and would talk publicly about how homosexuals "offended" him, etc. We ended up not renewing his contract because he was toxic.

At government places, political discussions were generally avoided. The Hatch Act might have something to do with that (it's illegal to campaign for any political candidate at a Federal workplace), but mostly I think people just had good common sense. They did talk a little among themselves in the run-up to the election, but it was in-person, with a buddy, not meant to be a public discussion.

What's really shocking to me here is this revelation that there's actually "global mailing lists" within the company where political talk is happening. This, I cannot imagine ever seeing at any of my prior employers, ever. I honestly can't imagine why any company would tolerate such a use of its equipment this way. It's just a recipe for trouble.

magduf | 5 years ago

This article makes it seem like debating politics is a good practices in workplace. It is NOT!

Talking politics in workplace is not professional - different political opinions can wreck marriages, it can certainly wreck your job too! Just think about what if your boss is having a completely different political opinions than what you belief.

Also any major corporations leaning one side of the political party would immediately alienate the other half the political spectrum and may risk losing businesses who believe in the opposition political parties.

devy | 5 years ago

This is an eye opener.

> [Google] employees discussed at length [on internal message boards] whether Trump’s win meant it’s time for a violent revolution. “How do people cope with this?” one employee wrote. “I’ve never been part of a military or war effort before. … I don’t know how useful I’ll be.”

It's about time Google tells people to take their political revolution talk somewhere else other than company internal discussion boards!

https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james...

fortran77 | 5 years ago

I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. That's kinda natural once you reach a certain size and your colleagues may as well be randos on the street.

To be fair, that's a learning most businesses stumbled upon decades ago, it's the new generation of "re-invent management" companies that are speedrunning HR policy.

arcticbull | 5 years ago

Ever since the infamous "diversity memo," (which I disagree with,) I've gotten the impression that political discussions at Google turned toxic.

A well run company includes people with diverse political views points. A workplace that's hostile to anyone who leans right or leans left ultimately hurts diversity.

gwbas1c | 5 years ago

I'm surprised at the lack of skepticism in the discussion here. The term "politics" - even assuming there is a problem with fiery discussions of what we traditionally view that term to cover - could easily cover dissent over programs like Dragonfly. Most controversy within Google that is publicly known is politically motivated. Don't take this term at face value.

lame88 | 5 years ago

A small group of people always ruin these things for everyone else.

ie, the people who can't handle politics and think the worlds constantly on fire so they think they're justified in ignoring social grace and time/place taboos. The internet news machines have generated many thousands of these people.

I feel like they are becoming more popular and giving even less of a shit that other people don't want to be forced to listen to their politics at work or in other forced proximity environments. And then there's the people who judge you for not talking or 'resisting', as if not being politically engaged is equivalent to supporting the 'other side'. Then there's the overly-excited drunken political rants at parties, that's when they really let loose! /rant

dmix | 5 years ago

Why shouldn’t employees of the company with the goal of organizing all the worlds information debate politics? Everything is political. Especially information.

taurath | 5 years ago

How about we do our jobs instead? Yes please!

stevenalowe | 5 years ago

I try to just do work at work, but to play contrarian:

If one agrees with Aristotle in that: "Man is by nature a political animal," the cultural acceptance of no politics at work seems almost nefarious. Most of us spend more time at work than perhaps any other activity, barring sleep.

One could perhaps even hypothesize that without some political discussion at work, people exclusively talk with friends who share their political opinions, causing larger lateralization of political thought.

SirensOfTitan | 5 years ago

Since this is google, it is getting interesting:

>organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law

rubberstock | 5 years ago

Where I grew up, the saying went "there are three things you don't talk about in polite company: money, religion, and politics." Where I used to work, I found out someone I worked with a lot didn't support gay marriage. I had a really hard time working with them after that.

Maybe this is the inevitable outcome of trying to make work a social hub. It's great to say that we should be able to discuss anything with anyone, but the reality is that we're not all perfectly mature people and we can't handle it.

madrox | 5 years ago

Worked at Google for a short time (2013-2014), during the height of Trayvon Martin and other murders of black folks around then. The internal discussion could really be hard to read for me (I'm black). Still, I don't think it should really be stopped. I was glad to be able to express my actual opinions at work.

I think they'll have a really hard time totally stopping it though. Internally it's really like a college atmosphere, at least in terms of exchanging ideas via their intranet. I was amazed that it was so open in that way, and I hope they find a way to keep that culture alive.

On the other hand, it was hard to work with people that help views that I considered racist or nearly so. No easy solution here.

djtriptych | 5 years ago

I wonder if this has anything to do with the recently leaked posts that shows google staff used the google search front end to target specific demographics they expected to vote for a particular candidate and then were shocked and upset when a substantial minority portion of those populations voted for different candidates?

If discussions are leading to credible allegations that a company was promoting candidates using their marketing resources in violation of campaign finance laws, it would be easy to understand why they might want to get those discussions offline.

nullc | 5 years ago

I expect them to loosely categorize politics, while still encouraging open corporate discussion of LGBTQ, racial, and other such issues. People may have different opinions about that.

dev_dull | 5 years ago

Monkey has shit the bed already though hasn't it.

I never had the need to discuss politics at work. Just don't do it, why open that can of worms. Absolutely no need to do so. One time a coworker asked me and I said "I don't discuss politics at work". Be professional, people.

sergiotapia | 5 years ago

I'm not at Google but my guess is that the number of Chinese employees and the current protests in HongKong might create some internal political fights.

baby | 5 years ago

I think this was inevitable in the long run. From the very beginning, Google has tried to have the atmosphere of a college campus rather than a normal workplace, probably (at least in the early days before every tech company started doing this) to help them stand out among job applicants as an alternative to stuffier companies.

The thing is though, professional work environments (where there are typically norms around never discussing politics) are the way they are for a reason. Just like Bitcoiners are rediscovering why finance regulations exist, Google is rediscovering why the cool, relaxed workplace ends up causing more problems than it solves.

Analemma_ | 5 years ago

Don't debate politics, but please contribute to our corporate PAC that supports some of the worst politicians.

mullingitover | 5 years ago

What a busy topic!

My first reaction (to the general topic) was, "Well, of course they had to put a stop to that. And international message forums with many participants? What a recipe for disaster."

But then I had to be honest with myself: I'm at work at least 45 hours a week (not at Google, but in tech). My commute time is 45 minutes each way. So out of 11-12 hours of not-me-time, you want me to completely keep my trap shut? That's a hard ask.

Here's an example. Earlier this week, I'm on my way to the subway and I see a fight, and I also see piss on two sets of seats on both sides of the subway car. Then I'm at work and my colleague, unprompted and as I come in, remarks how many more heroin-addled people there are in Midtown, Manhattan than he's ever seen. I then blurt out a rant about the Mayor, criminal justice policies I consider wrong (such as the push to lower incarceration without consequence), and a few other things that were aggressively opinionated and political, in an open office environment. Shortly thereafter I somewhat regretted it (but I never expected any consequences).

We're only human.

It just needs to be channeled. Keep it to your local work friends, or at the bar, or whatever that ISN'T on a message board.

mancerayder | 5 years ago

To be honest though, I've never been a fan of discussing politics at the workplace.

banachtarski | 5 years ago

Avoiding topics that are not work related and are likely to make a large group of co-workers angry seems like an obvious, professional thing to do, regardless of the specific policies of the workplace.

ineedasername | 5 years ago

Talk about work at work. If you meet someone at work who you think you want to be friends with, invite them for coffee before work and talk about non-work stuff then. But at work, just talk about work.

JustSomeNobody | 5 years ago

What's remarkable is how the media narrative surrounding this rule change seems to suggest that it's a bad thing, while the popular response is overwhelmingly positive. I've yet to see one of these articles quote someone who isn't an internal activist or present the perspective of any employee who likes the change.

quotemstr | 5 years ago

Great. Professional adults don’t talk about heated issues at work when it is not necessary. For obvious reasons.

simplecomplex | 5 years ago

It's a basic "work for hire" contract between two parties. No other employer will tolerate this. If you don't like it - quit and write a blog post.

papito | 5 years ago

There is a reason you keep away from discussing politics and religion in certain places. We all get excited when discussing them and nothing gets solved. Work is the wrong place for it. Google should have known this by now. It's about time they start doing something about it.

WheelsAtLarge | 5 years ago

By the way, I don't have a problem drawing the line at disruptive political debates. However, I don't trust companies to evenly apply such rules.

einhverfr | 5 years ago

It's almost as if embracing "the personal is political" makes people feel morally obligated and virtuous for airing every half baked and divisive political opinion. And now they want to put the genie back in the bottle? Far too late.

daenz | 5 years ago

This is the norm at most companies right? Like Microsoft etc.? Whether de factor or de iuro, politics is usually left at home unless it's personal conversations among close colleagues.

starpilot | 5 years ago

I bet majority of Google employees are taking a deep sigh of relief now.

It must be suffocating being surrounded with political talks at work when one is trying to do their job well.

didip | 5 years ago

Google shouldn't even have to say this to a bunch of grown ups. You don't talk about Politics, Religion, Sex, Health and Wealth with strangers.

segmondy | 5 years ago

Ownership of a multinational conglomarate corporation whose practices effect the lives of billions requires either governance or real stewardship. Google is driven by one thing making profit. There stewardship is morally defunct. their profits are driven by the sale of the never ending stream of consumer information they glean from the electronic fields where they harvest. That info is all encompassing some you or I would consider private some nonsense. others might percieve that very same data differantly. All of it can be used to map and monitise people, placea, ideas and things. All of it used to know you. To not deamand or hold google accountable for their caveat emptor and lasie fair monopoly is foolish. to allow them or their users a free hand is naive. Ideas are more powerful then weapons. Greed a larger motivator then morals. Google launched in the U.S. has taken those profits and used them to court profits in countrys where their motivations are not the U.S.s motivations but googles remains the same. Harvest information and sale it. Dont ask what the info is used for.

Mistrustbuster | 5 years ago

Of course Google doesn't want staff debating politics at work.

It can lead to this:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/27/18114285/google-employee...

or this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-pentagon/...

How is a company expected to make a buck if they have to suffer ethical considerations? The salaried workthings should just do what they're told...

coldtea | 5 years ago

If I had to guess, the individuals demanding that google employees be allowed to debate political subjects because "everything is political" are the same people who would argue that consumers of google's services shouldn't expect that google won't censor them. An odd position to take if you ask me.

flippinburgers | 5 years ago

Meanwhile, google shuts down more than 200 youtube channels that criticize the hong kong protests. (N.B.: I do not oppose them, im just pointing out how hilariously hypocritical it is for an organization at the center of global politics to be telling its employees not to debate politics.)

ixtli | 5 years ago

Genuinely don't know if HN is as reactionary as this comment sections makes it seem or if we're just getting astroturfed by the usual suspects.

I can't be the only one who sees this as a significant crackdown on employee freedoms and an attempt to silence dissent.

memmcgee | 5 years ago

I feel like Google should have started their orientation with a link to jwz's rba gruntle (not linking because HN people hate what his referral headers redirect does). The lawyer in that article is now an SVP of Legal at Google.

dekhn | 5 years ago

Finally common sense prevails! Get to work on time, eat your free lunch, work, go home.

To those of you who disagree; if you want to "make a difference" take a cue from Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther king Jr. etc. Mahama Gandhi didn't work for the East India company while simultaneously fighting for freedom.

If you are serious about it put your money where your mouth is and stop being empty vessels.

ashwinaj | 5 years ago

> Some employees have used internal chat boards to rally other workers against some Google projects, helping push the company to end work on a censored search engine for the Chinese market and an artificial intelligence contract for the U.S. military.

Oh. So they don't care about bullying or alienating people with unpopular political views, they're upset that employees are questioning their material support of antidemocratic governments. For a second I thought they were actually making something close to a good ethical choice here, I see I was mistaken.

sequoia | 5 years ago

They are right. It's ridicule that it has to come to this. Debate politics in your personal time. There's already too much shit keeping people from their workstations (massages, free food, ...)

dudus | 5 years ago

Big tech and hiring practices and internet privacy and google itself are political topics this election cycle. Should googlers not talk debate about tech and hiring and privacy and google?

6gvONxR4sf7o | 5 years ago

One of the their core values is "don't be evil", isn't that statement inherently political? I think a lot of people chose to work at Google (instead of say Oracle or etc) because of those ideals. Kinda disingenuous to advertise that reputation and then switch to a policy of "actually shut up and do the work".

paulhodge | 5 years ago

I don't work at Google. But, I wouldn't even discuss politics with people that I know agree with me. It's just not professional. I am a little surprised it's taken this long for this to come to a head -- the HR department must be breathing a sigh of relief.

intopieces | 5 years ago

Google itself is pretty political, just look at their Doodles. So, this will be interesting to watch.

kerng | 5 years ago

I think, inevitably, the saying about work not being a good forum for discussing:

- religion

- politics

- sex

still holds true, regardless of how progressive the workplace.

Tehchops | 5 years ago

I agree with Google. Don't discuss politics or religion at work. It's not a good look.

halis | 5 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks it’s totally okay for a Company to allow or not allow certain kinds of discussions within their offices. Why is this even a debate ? Companies are not run like democracies !! You dont loke the rule, change the company.

cryptozeus | 5 years ago

No shit. I guess Google can no longer assume that there is a single correct world view that all good and smart people hold. Who knew.

zarkov99 | 5 years ago

Seems like one of those Google internal threads has spilled external onto HN

discordance | 5 years ago

What's wrong with that? Work is for working, is it not?

notadoc | 5 years ago

Judging from the comments there are basically two stereotypes of people in this discussion:

1) The people who "just want to do their work". While they might care about the ramifications of what they're doing they don't think about it actively while working on it

2) The people who care A LOT about their ethics and try to respect them in whatever they do

I guess both sides are important and the way Google phrased these new rules doesn't seem to exclude either side but "banning politics at work" surely isn't good for type #2 and, by extension, the company at large.

t0astbread | 5 years ago

Ok, so are senior executives going to follow that rule?

One recalls the transcript from the all-hands meeting after the 2016 election where Sergey Brin said “Most people here are pretty upset and pretty sad, “I find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of you do too. It’s a stressful time, and it conflicts with many of our values. I think it’s a good time to reflect on that. ... So many people apparently don’t share the values that we have.” and in doing so put a target on the back of every centrist and conservative at Google.

Causality1 | 5 years ago
[deleted]
| 5 years ago

So, how does protesting google's self-censorship to get into China count as political, and should it be banned?

SolaceQuantum | 5 years ago

So once China starts to violently crack down on Hong Kong protesters, is Google going to hide it all?

yters | 5 years ago

I don't blame them. Even aside from the President and GOP media machine attacking them for anti-conservative bias, Why would you want people to talk politics at work in the first place? At work you should be working. Argue about politics on your own time.

(He said, posting from work.)

And the difference is my employer doesn't host Hacker News. I'm posting on my own recognizance.

hendersoon | 5 years ago

> disrupting the workday to have a raging debate over politics or the latest news story does not,

Why do googlers engage in this at work? They don't feel their political conversations deserve a wider audience? Or do they feel the wider audience does not deserve their political conversations ?

buboard | 5 years ago

Headline is a lie that the article body quickly contradicts.

lonelappde | 5 years ago

Yes! It's about time work and politics were made separate.

Political discussion quickly turn toxic. Nobody is convinced of anything, and career harm is a definite possibility.

This is a great, common-sense move. Kudos to Google.

RickJWagner | 5 years ago

I couldn't imagine debating politics at work.

jdlyga | 5 years ago

It was ok until it started impacting the business... Like when the workers prevented the sale of AI technology to the people droning wedding parties in the Middle East. Yawn.

tehjoker | 5 years ago

Good. Work should not be a debating society.

twblalock | 5 years ago

It's funny how we pigeonhole "things that actually matter" as "politics" and that those things are somehow taboo. I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?

webwielder2 | 5 years ago
[deleted]
| 5 years ago

This isn't new. In 2011, a bunch of right-wingers (people we'd recognize as fascists) got one of the smartest people in tech burned out of Google in 6 months. They did whatever they could for years to ruin his career and may still being doing it. Executives stood by and let it happen.

This is not a new tension.

santo_bob | 5 years ago

most comments I've ever seen on a HN post I think

habnds | 5 years ago

No debate, just get in line.

huffmsa | 5 years ago

>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views.

I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much less respect, the second is itself a form of disrespect.

Now, that is a pretty extreme view for today's society but good for making an example with. It is also not too far off from many views that I have personally seen, especially when you begin to imagine the legal changes involved to implement those views.

SkyBelow | 5 years ago

From the other side - if the world is on fire but a portion of the population thinks everything is just fine and dandy... is it appropriate for everyone to be politely quite until that portion comes to their own realization that the world is on fire? What if that never happens?

I feel like the gun control debate is particularly relevant - whenever a shooting happens one side calmly says "This is unfortunate but unavoidable given the cost to freedom we'd need to pay to remove firearms - please stop trying to use a tragedy politically" while the other side says "How many times does this need to happen before you realize 12,000 Americans died from this last year and I don't want my kid to be one of them."

Here's an issue where I think half the side thinks the world is on fire and the other is content - without getting into the merits of either side I do think it's unreasonable for the anti-gun control side to continue to argue against having a discussion for the sake of decorum. This is a divide we need to resolve.

munk-a | 5 years ago

The problem is that what constitutes politics? Guns shouldn't be political, who you have sex with shouldn't be political...but in our current climate, they are both considered political.

..and no debating? Most people at Google are shades of left. It sounds like they are just trying to drown out dissenting views once again.

moresocialism | 5 years ago

I think it's fine for an employer to dictate this, I certainly never want to debate politics or encounter others doing that at work. But it's not fine if the company wants employees to "bring their whole selves to work", as I understand Google does. I think the very concept is misguided; I don't think people should be expected to bring "their whole selves to work". But if that's what an employer wants, then they should expect to get exactly that.

draw_down | 5 years ago

Why do they have time to talk at all?

mrtweetyhack | 5 years ago

Maybe a few less politicians would help....ok maybe a dozen or two:

Soros funded child rape ring protected by Trump for $4 billion bribe, Pelosi $3 billion to "ensure safe passage over border". Participants include Obama, Schumer, Cuomo, Buttgieg, DeBlasio, Theil, Dorsey, Bill Murray. Over 60+ deaths from rapes, billions in payoffs. Listen to them do it here: BE SURE TO Listen! to previously unprocessed footage now available [Soros, 0bama child rapes 15Jan 4-6am], Obama around 524: "Why is there so much blood? Someone get me something to clean the blood off my dick..."

>>> banned in LA, NYC, CHI, SF, BOS, DC...

*note: -> groups of links are multiple ways to get the same file ->

15JanCh3_347-528.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8YeDzghf95FQrxBaMpXK4b-SfJ... https://mega.nz/#!bTQwDQDA!jolSOqGR2Zomhtn7zIG0lGmqXSqe3KG1m...

15JanCh3_528-545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavyRFWTRv4_teHYewpQMwMCq6L... https://mega.nz/#!DfBywKKR!llMUzB8DLM2Rcvm0QkOKdiE3PpCY5YeR3...

15JanCh4_400-600.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DavnBCyhq_JRmST2QH5qlojUE6d... https://mega.nz/#!faZggSja!yF_QOcodvYXwk7qEO1N8eSaV90ZWUUaS1...

See pgs 18-23,8,11,12,35,45,61,62, and update list at end of doc.. Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored/banned. Billions in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 80 page document [update 20Aug] filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom.

Go to pages 18 through 23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama.

Please copy and paste this post and repost it, or save it for later because it will likely get removed sooner or later. I keep getting censored by these people.

Bill DeBlasio's turn starts at 2100: https://mega.nz/#!OCJwQSBC!AlER6vRRTKS8yvSxnVwAl3ha3kGDLqoou...

Andrew Cuomo's starts at 2200: https://mega.nz/#!qKZChABY!zy-2jIHqEg4gWHNbiEym-YBdSs5Y9qzT2...

Both files in one here: 14JanCh3_2100-2300.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yolCgVtY5b8d8YDcshwb-Yd3kS0...

Peter Thiel starts at 100, Jack Dorsey at 130 each raping and killing three boys. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on.

    https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing
    https://mega.nz/#!qHhRiKLI!Tl1AnP0Lq6GIBH2MGitYNuXoe81uYeVQdxwSaZ8CY7o
\0bama admits to raping and killing boys here at about 547, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter:

    https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing
    https://mega.nz/#!veBk1KrL!zkO_keTyZAtNoTGEGsfRmXyuVIj9p8c3R8GtY-o_Nt8
    
DTrump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015++ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue:

1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 Porter: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye.

    https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing
    https://mega.nz/#!TKgxzS5J!i-nWn3HaOAJPU7rju83B4qcwSzun4Dl2B29FEZxtMSU
Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment, as in no trial or hearing, simlpy entering in a judgement into the system thus bypassing the fifth amendment right of due process:

    https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing
    https://mega.nz/#!jSwzFYLY!RFQvL8KIyFZf1WfC6tGoPFgJ4aREeGE_pe3i2fwshy8

  Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey...At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill Murray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illuminati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapists. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who we are.":
  
      https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing
      https://mega.nz/#!nbhTwALA!qmf_0Lq0jApSwxRj1KRS_Q7QYbg4aJc4JMU9rDjR_yo
      
Full 80 page document [updated 20Aug]:

  three ways to get it:
  
    https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJc9cGk/view?usp=sharing
    https://mega.nz/#!OKYwES6A!zPGcRSg5de1XALI3FtUH3FCNCuLUzQbZN0l5iNCQqmU
\Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". Getting blocked, censored, "downvoted" etc. These people are extremely wealthy and throw money to anyone who will help them cover up their child rapes & murders, corruption. Ironically, this is usually done through a receivership transfer, where you receive the funds after four or more day, and it can be pulled at the last second, whch is usually the case, after you've done them the "service".

A word about the "f@\&&ot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other f@%%ot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended.

Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link for the doc is just above under "Full 80 page document".

beeschlenker | 5 years ago

I am under the impression it was never a debate to start with. A debate implies that both sides are allowed to speak their arguments, yet, Google was actively shutting down and firing people that defended one of the sides.

wtdata | 5 years ago

Conservative Americans don't want politics at work, or on the football field, or at family dinners, or...anywhere else that isn't officially sanctioned. Sounds like China to me.

wonnage | 5 years ago

I fully expect their next product to enable our webcam, take pictures of us naked all the time, threaten us with blackmail that they will post it on the internet, unless we buy YouTube Premium, and somehow all of it will be "agreed to" ahead of time by their privacy policy.

And because politics are non-discussable, no employee will be able to stop this.

rhacker | 5 years ago

So, wait. The focus will being on getting work done?

That'll never work.

stretchwithme | 5 years ago

And there I was hoping they would solve all the world's problems from their campus in Mountain View.

kwillets | 5 years ago

Paywall, but I'd bet this is mostly about forums/Slack/email and not about in person conversations.

I think the problem is that mass communication tools being used at biggish companies and up do not foster productive conversations about controversial topics. Trolling scales too well.

freewilly1040 | 5 years ago

The Freemasons figured this out over a century ago to good effect.

Zelphyr | 5 years ago

I really have to wonder: do Google engineers google for things when they can't work out a solution to their problem?

Because honestly, all you need to do, in order to form a perfect political opinion, is google for it. No further effort required.

somesortofsystm | 5 years ago

it is amazing how one simple thought escapes google execs - country is split in two halfs. google has strongly affiliated itself with one of the halfs to the point of complete alienation by other half. google would rather stick to its questionable political preferences and lose 50% of the market. sounds like a poor business decision.

shitgoose | 5 years ago
[deleted]
| 5 years ago

It's about time Google cracked the whip on this entitled engineers! Maybe they would shut down less products if employees were actually at their posts and kept their noses clean! As an employee of a company, YOU are the one who needs to just show up and do your job without complaints or causing a disruption in the work place!

iamleppert | 5 years ago

If Google did get split up, maybe the baby Googles could keep their open culture?

Update: I realize that this comment appears sarcastic and ill-meaning, but the top ranked post on HN is about " Deconstructing Google’s excuses on tracking protection" as of this moment (Friday, August 23, 2019 2:25 PM PDT) [0]. If we take the following together:

1. the open culture at Google as a known good quantity for some of the people who like to work there and keep working there

2. each of the products and services that Google offers today as respective known good quantities

3. The aggregate of Google's influence with respect to how the products and services in 2. sometimes has negative impacts on the marketplace.

4. The size of Google causes the open culture in 1. to start being a hindrance to Google itself.

Then it seems obvious to me that the size and breadth of Google is the problem. I genuinely mean all of this in good-faith. If Google stayed small, then maybe services like Google Reader could still be around because the gap between cost and benefit would not have been as wide.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20779964

tareqak | 5 years ago

If they can actually pull this off (which I doubt), I might consider working there again. I had an offer from them last Dec and turned it down, in part, because this shit is borderline unbearable on the inside (I worked at Google in the past when it was less political, and it was barely tolerable even then).

A good number of people do nothing but stir shit up on the internal forums and mailing lists. They also seem to be "untouchable" because stirring shit typically takes the form of grievance peddling or white knighting, so if you just let them go, their (rather extensive) cliques would give you hell for "discrimination" and write petitions, go to the press, etc, etc, as we've seen after a few higher profile departures over the past couple of years. You don't want to be called a misogynist or racist for disagreeing with literally anything they say, do you?

It'd be good for the leadership to grow some gender-appropriate gonads, and refocus the company on the business side of things for a change. Activism is fine, just not on the company's time, and not when it impacts the business or other employees. Just like I don't want to hear what church (if any) you go to, or what gender you prefer in bed, I also don't want to know what your political preferences are. Nor do I like to feel obliged to share your opinion any of those things, even if you think you're "right". I'm trying to work. You're getting in the way.

This should apply equally to all: as a conservative, I don't want to hear about conservative issues at work either. I want to hear about work, and _only_ work.

m0zg | 5 years ago