There is an arc to everything, and while we may not be able to see it from here, history shows us that empires rise and fall over time. Before Google, Facebook and Amazon, consumer access to content on the Internet was dominated by AOL and Yahoo. AT&T, Microsoft and IBM dominated the platform infrastructure. Big oil and Saudi Arabia once held us hostage, but now we are nearing energy independence. Newton's third law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
5
Damore had to go. After publishing his memo no woman would work for him.
5
Neo-liberalism got us to this point. Democracy is gone, with only Potemkin manifestations of it to fool the screen-addicted electorate (which includes the highly educated cadres who do the bidding of the rich in search of their own wee place in the world, happy screwing everyone below them). There is nowhere to go. The dream of democracy has long been lost. The latest iteration of capitalism will destroy our planet and we will all go down with it, google watching us all the way.....
2
While we're talking about threats to our privacy and freedom, let's be sure NOT forget the NSA's extreme violations of the constitution. They still have MANY programs that are running roughshod over the Bill of Rights, in clear violations of the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.
When addressing this very important topic, let's be sure to limit the surveillance powers of BOTH the government and the corporations, before it's too late. It's already pretty damn late!
When addressing this very important topic, let's be sure to limit the surveillance powers of BOTH the government and the corporations, before it's too late. It's already pretty damn late!
7
The Silicone valley is being criticized by the left and the right for different reasons. So, they must be doing something right. If they do it they are damned, if they don't, they are too. Leave them alone!
2
They're scraping the Internet and mining it for pop-ups and bait-clicks. They have the biggest list of failed projects in corporate history, definitely the one that's spent the most down the drain chasing useless stuff they have no competence building, other than fists of cash to prevent getting laughed-out on announcement day. They've enabled trolls, stalkers, purveyors of trash, scamsters, criminals, terrorists, pornographers etc. in the millions. They're headed by a snowflake CEO who recently revealed he has ZERO management competence, clearly the biggest beneficiary of diversity gone mad. We're told it was reward for leading Android, the most insecure operating system in history, the same OS behind Samsung's brazen stealing of Apple patents which eventually cost them billions. Well, in that case, he belongs as a defendant in court, not CEO office.
Last person, please flush the toilet before turning off lights. Thank you.
Last person, please flush the toilet before turning off lights. Thank you.
6
I've been at Google for a little over two years now and it's nothing like the author describes. It's a gentle, sometimes overly nice place where one struggles to find external forces to keep one accountable. Corporate responsibility is taken very seriously with a generous $6k a year donation matching program.
On the other hand I've had close family work for the finance industry. Now, from all accounts, that one is a cesspit of misogyny, victimizing people in general, and sometimes just plain criminal. When it is none of that, it sucks the lifeblood out of its employees and makes mockery of their work life balance. And now that they are being outgunned money-wise by a much more benevolent if hokey company/industry, this hit piece. Nice try Mr. Taplin, nice try.
On the other hand I've had close family work for the finance industry. Now, from all accounts, that one is a cesspit of misogyny, victimizing people in general, and sometimes just plain criminal. When it is none of that, it sucks the lifeblood out of its employees and makes mockery of their work life balance. And now that they are being outgunned money-wise by a much more benevolent if hokey company/industry, this hit piece. Nice try Mr. Taplin, nice try.
12
Liberals attacking Google makes my day.
1
This opinion piece is wildly irresponsible. For instance it claims that "the fact is that Google is a monopoly". It that was true don't you think that it would be immediately sued by the government and its competitors.
1
This is the umpteenth article I've read where Taplin does his best twisted logic to perform a hit job on Peter Thiel. He talks so much trash I'm beginning to wonder if he is part of a kayfabe theater like wrestling promotion that is painting Thiel to be the heel. There's a good probability that Mr. Taplin is just acting and doesn't believe any of it.
4
>> have built the most pervasive, centralized systems for steering human attention that has ever existed
Hmm..Taplin didn't watch television in the 1960s. TV did the same thing, driven by Madison Avenue and Hollywood types. As TV passed into the background, Facebook and Google will also pass
Hmm..Taplin didn't watch television in the 1960s. TV did the same thing, driven by Madison Avenue and Hollywood types. As TV passed into the background, Facebook and Google will also pass
3
"Peter Thiel, one of the ideological leaders in the Valley"
Just because Thiel makes a lot of noise and inserts himself into arguments that have nothing to do with him personally doesn't make him "one of the ideological leaders in the Valley."
Just because Thiel makes a lot of noise and inserts himself into arguments that have nothing to do with him personally doesn't make him "one of the ideological leaders in the Valley."
6
Big news! Google is hiring.
It is not necessary to fill out an application.
They already know everything about you.
It is not necessary to fill out an application.
They already know everything about you.
5
Google's ad tracking still has a long way to go. I recently bought my wife a handbag, and our house a new doorbell - both bought online. What ads do I get to see on webpages morning noon and night? Yup, ads for the very same handbag and doorbell that I have just bought. Looks like some advertisers are being charged for nothing.
But on the question of whether Google (or anyone else) ever does "the right thing", or "what's best for us" or suchlike, the answer has to be: only when our interests coincide. Cognitive bias means that we can convince ourselves that anything - even the slaughter of innocents - is "the right thing".
But on the question of whether Google (or anyone else) ever does "the right thing", or "what's best for us" or suchlike, the answer has to be: only when our interests coincide. Cognitive bias means that we can convince ourselves that anything - even the slaughter of innocents - is "the right thing".
For people that still don't get it: I made a purchase on Boxeddotcom yesterday, and Boxeddotcom is being advertised to me on Facebook today.
1
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”- Voltaire.
Obviously, the fringe politically correct elements rule. Nobody can discuss or disagree wirth the current gender, race, sexual orientation policies that are being pushed through our businesses, government and universities. We are turning into a state where thought is controlled.
Obviously, the fringe politically correct elements rule. Nobody can discuss or disagree wirth the current gender, race, sexual orientation policies that are being pushed through our businesses, government and universities. We are turning into a state where thought is controlled.
2
There are other search engines out there. Disgusted by google's lack of concern for privacy and fearful of it's monopoly power, I switched to duck duck go (https://duckduckgo.com/) a few months ago.
7
Google's vision of the bricks-and-mortar world is an inaccurate misrepresentation - a fake marketplace dominated by advertisers. Google Maps present fake service companies with pretend addresses which lure unsuspecting customers and overcharge them, all the while hiding honest local businesses from view, or worse using similar names and stealing customers out from under them. Google cares nothing for the small local businesses driven out by fakers and charlatans. Just ask any local locksmith what Google has done to their business, if they still are in business.
4
Having heard about the firing of the Google tech for several days, I decided to read his missive, fully expecting to see nonsense like smaller brains and genetic inferiority. Instead I saw a reasoned opinion put forth by an intelligent person, with the expressed aim of inquiring into the reasons for gender inequality.
Some of it was straight out of Psyche 101, like women tend to be more cooperative while men tend to be more competitive. Some items were more controversial, such as his assertion women don't work as well under pressure or that minority support groups don't necessarily work to promote diversity at Google. Nowhere in the 10 pages did I read any right-wing attacks. I saw an opening for dialogue among intelligent people.
Instead, Google chose to fire the man and shut down any conversation on the subject, just as the right-wing Trumpians would do. Now, the conservative attack dogs like Breitbart have jumped in to defend him, muddying the conversational waters even further.
But this is the fate of any monolithic corporation (or nation for that matter).
Shut down minority opinion and you will stop progress.
Some of it was straight out of Psyche 101, like women tend to be more cooperative while men tend to be more competitive. Some items were more controversial, such as his assertion women don't work as well under pressure or that minority support groups don't necessarily work to promote diversity at Google. Nowhere in the 10 pages did I read any right-wing attacks. I saw an opening for dialogue among intelligent people.
Instead, Google chose to fire the man and shut down any conversation on the subject, just as the right-wing Trumpians would do. Now, the conservative attack dogs like Breitbart have jumped in to defend him, muddying the conversational waters even further.
But this is the fate of any monolithic corporation (or nation for that matter).
Shut down minority opinion and you will stop progress.
7
Bust up Google. Please!
2
This opinion appearing in a media that is disappearing makes me wonder if the writer in in a position to tell us how to think.
There is no arrogant assumption on what is good for their fellow humans that I assume will not be made by Google. Be afraid, very.
2
To the extent people allow large internet entities control over their lives, they deserve to be controlled. Like cigarette smoking and junk food, staring at the little bitty phone screen endlessly or giving a damn about Facebook is a time tradeoff you make. You trade dignity and quality for titillation and convenience. Rather than devotion to a sound mind and a sound body the new ethic is: Be fat, live on Facebook. Because people are just not that into living quality lives.
I use Google for searches but never see an ad. My accounts are not under my name, nor is the Facebook account I opened just for ease of logging in to some sites I like to use. The Facebook pages themselves are completely empty. Amazon sends my order to a pseudonym although it does get a credit card number. I'm not "known" to tech giants. And for the record I tossed that old nemesis the TV five years ago.
I use Google for searches but never see an ad. My accounts are not under my name, nor is the Facebook account I opened just for ease of logging in to some sites I like to use. The Facebook pages themselves are completely empty. Amazon sends my order to a pseudonym although it does get a credit card number. I'm not "known" to tech giants. And for the record I tossed that old nemesis the TV five years ago.
2
Google is to "do no evil" as Fox News is to "fair and balanced."
7
They're scraping the Internet and mining it for pop-ups and bait-clicks. They've the biggest list of failed projects in corporate history, definitely the one that's spent the most down the drain chasing useless stuff they have no competence building. Other than fists of cash to prevent getting laughed-out on announcement day. They've enabled trolls, stalkers, purveyors of trash, scamsters, criminals, terrorists, pornographers etc. in the millions. They're headed by a snowflake CEO who recently revealed he has ZERO management competence, clearly the biggest beneficiary of diversity gone mad. We're told it was reward for leading Android, the most insecure operating system in history, the same OS behind Samsung's brazen stealing of Apple patents which eventually cost them billions. Well, in that case, he belongs as a defendant in court, not CEO office.
Google's best days are over. Bah.
Google's best days are over. Bah.
2
“if you are not paying for it, you aren’t the customer — you’re the product”… yep.
1
As always the key is education. In schools, young people need to be educated as to how become savvy consumers including the consumption of the internet. They need to learn how to protect their browsing information by, for example, using proxy servers. They need to be educated about the risks.
1
Two things interest me in this discussion. First, that Gary Becker is to a certain extent right. Motivated only by profit a major corporation is taking steps to exploit a pool of talented workers who are underrepresented due to discrimination. Second that a large group of self-identified Libertarians have called for political action to attack this profit centered corporation and force it to roll back its attempts in order preserve their own comfortable bigotry.
1
Google is not our friend (I type into my Google Chrome brower). But don't conflate the dangers of their monopoly with gender issues and the memo by Damore. That memo was pretty reasonable, and saying that Google "had to fire the offending engineer" is misleading to say the least. This is more groupthink. It's becoming the case that to explore causes of differences in gender representation is considered evil--it has to be 100% sexism, and no further discussion is allowed. I'm from the Atlanta area, Georgia Tech is a top five engineering school. The male-female ratio of their school of engineering was 68%-32% as of 2015, and if we're looking at a thirty-something old engineer who graduated 10 years ago, the ratios would be more lopsided. It's pretty impossible right now to have 50-50 gender splits in technical fields.
Finally, there seems to be an implication that if there were more female representation in tech companies, they wouldn't be so "evil". That, of course, is also sexist.
It's getting harder to be liberal, but I'll persist.
Finally, there seems to be an implication that if there were more female representation in tech companies, they wouldn't be so "evil". That, of course, is also sexist.
It's getting harder to be liberal, but I'll persist.
10
Google, Facebook, Amazon are monopolies. The idea that simply because prices go down obviates the necessity of breaking them up is outdated at best. These companies enhance only the wealth of themselves and do so to the detriment of everyone who uses their services.
4
Google does what's best for Google, just like all other companies who want to make money, and lots of it. Google didn't address the topic that the "fired" Mr. Danmore raised about Google. In fact, I would now say that Google's employees will be more suppressed and worried about they might want to say!
Mr. Pichai would the memo below after having fired Mr. Danmore:
“The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender,” Mr. Pichai wrote. “Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being ‘agreeable’ rather than ‘assertive,’ showing a ‘lower stress tolerance,’ or being ‘neurotic.’”
For myself, Mr. Pichai's note would appear to be hypocritical, considering how fast Mr. Danmore was dismissed. As the famous expression goes - "the first thing to go is freedom of speech"! Google and Mr. Pichai, of course, can do what they want, but don't be so righteous and hypocritical in trying to convnce us that there is freedom of expression at Google!
Mr. Pichai would the memo below after having fired Mr. Danmore:
“The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender,” Mr. Pichai wrote. “Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being ‘agreeable’ rather than ‘assertive,’ showing a ‘lower stress tolerance,’ or being ‘neurotic.’”
For myself, Mr. Pichai's note would appear to be hypocritical, considering how fast Mr. Danmore was dismissed. As the famous expression goes - "the first thing to go is freedom of speech"! Google and Mr. Pichai, of course, can do what they want, but don't be so righteous and hypocritical in trying to convnce us that there is freedom of expression at Google!
4
What Google did is what any HR director at any company would do in response to such an "open letter". Especially when co-workers at Google have a direct influence on your annual review. To act differently would have left Google open to lawsuits.
4
A few years ago, Google gave a presentation to several NYC high schools purporting that 'Critical Thinking' was defined as a Google search. All good teachers and scientists know that Critical Thinking involves what's called Synthesis, the ability to take hitherto unconnected ideas and concepts and create new information. Any web search is regurgitative; there is no connection therefore with Critical Thinking. However, Google wants everyone to believe that all answers lie with them. At best, web searches provide a snapshot into existing information but always with whatever filter (known as ranking) its providers deem as beneficial to them solidly in place. At worst, web searches provide a subtle cultural control mechanism (one might call it propaganda or brainwashing). Google likes to advertise that they allow all information to be accessed, however it's been well known for many years that their ranking system rates websites on the basis of money paid to Google as well as information beneficial to them - all in the name of 'personalizing' the web. In this day and age of information flow, the organization which controls that flow controls everything else, including our ability to think, to make decisions, to control our own lives. Monopolies (whether in manufacturing, IT, or data) are antithetical to a democracy.
8
If it would not be Google, it would some other corporations. There is no escape here....Hotel California.
2
Well said. Google is actually more dangerous than most politicians because so few know what it actually tracks and how it uses that information. Someday, if we're not careful, G and FB will be presenting screens of reality that many people won't be able to discern as such. Think Vanilla Sky and West World. Here we come.
3
The NYT is late to the party.
For 5 years parents in our school district have been fighting against the reckless use of computers in the classroom.
We eventually lost to big money. Learning will be harder and test scores will go down. But the tech firms and local politicians will be richer.
For 5 years parents in our school district have been fighting against the reckless use of computers in the classroom.
We eventually lost to big money. Learning will be harder and test scores will go down. But the tech firms and local politicians will be richer.
16
This article articulates the some of the nebulous forces that have caused people to migrate towards an authoritarian like Donald Trump and the alt right that is keen to exploit the sense of powerlessness that we are all feeling. The general acceptance in popular media that Bezos, Jobs or other tech giants are gods instead of regular guys who are smart and a have a good sense of entrepreneurship has always made me uncomfortable. In the 70's it was gurus that people elevated to this unquestioning adulation. Now its techies, but l didn't create this designation. Did you? Who did? It just out there in the culture, well defined ny popular media and unthinkingly accepted by people, particularly males, that need a model that lifts them out of the normal, and mortality (until they die) . We need leaders but magical thinking is pervasive. Just ask the question: is this person or company improving mine and others lives? To what extent? And them rate the positives along witb the negatives and measure them with research to clean up the environment, mundane things such as sleep apnea, or early childhood education. Yeah, tech is helpful and essential in many endeavors involving science or socioecenomics, but does it deserve slavish cultish adulation? My opinion is no.
12
Blaming the hegemony and monopoly of Google on Trump or his supporters is a disservice to legitimate criticisms of the president. Please limit negative comments to rational discourse.
Google did evil by firing Damore: Google shut down reasoned discourse. Its new head of diversity emphasized that diverse, thoughtful ideas are not acceptable. While Google remained run by engineers (not bureaucrats, like Ms. Diversity Boss, or MBA's) it has done extraordinary things for many of us. Return Google's management to the engineers. And return Google to the honest, open exploration of difficult questions. And, bring back Damore. Perhaps pursuing his honest but difficult questions might bring constructive answers.
21
This view coming from an MD, unbelievable! I cannot believe in 21st century any thinking person can condone what Mr Damore wrote or stands for. Basically he says women are incapable of technical work, such as done in Google. He definitely does not belong in Google or any progressive organization or company. Don't forget Mr Szajnberg- it's not 18th century.
3
This article doesn't touch at all on the much larger issue which effects both sexes: Ageism.
We may not be software engineers but there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly well qualified over 50's who are (like me) unemployed, unemployable, and not under consideration at all.
I imagine it will take another 20 years, until these current 30 somethings find themselves being dismissed by the new crowd of 30 somethings, before legislation will require these big companies to include the over 50s in their work force. Until then I'm not sure what we will do. And the country (and those COMPANIES) will suffer.
We may not be software engineers but there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly well qualified over 50's who are (like me) unemployed, unemployable, and not under consideration at all.
I imagine it will take another 20 years, until these current 30 somethings find themselves being dismissed by the new crowd of 30 somethings, before legislation will require these big companies to include the over 50s in their work force. Until then I'm not sure what we will do. And the country (and those COMPANIES) will suffer.
16
But just like the bankers of the 80's, the white-boy culture has never changed. Just as corporate America only looks for right wingers because they are easy to control. We very few Liberals only get hired because, well, the right wingers they hire are all stupid.
Have women entered the STEM fields in great numbers ever? I think the answer to that one is no.
Bottom line is that in America, capitalist companies are authoritarian groups with no laws. They are allowed to hire and fire and push around communities and do pretty much anything, because ain't that America, the land of mediocrity? "You got a job, right? So shut up."
Have women entered the STEM fields in great numbers ever? I think the answer to that one is no.
Bottom line is that in America, capitalist companies are authoritarian groups with no laws. They are allowed to hire and fire and push around communities and do pretty much anything, because ain't that America, the land of mediocrity? "You got a job, right? So shut up."
4
Where is this tech era's William Wilberforce?
2
The only thing that can remedy unfettered capatilism other than powerful unions is the power of the public expressed through their government which they own as per the Constitution. Government sets the standards in the work place with OSHA, Workers Comp., child labor laws, wage and hours laws and anti discrimination laws, etc., etc. Yet no law is worth much if it is ignored, like the Sherman Anti Trust Act, or laws to protect older and female workers.
Since the Regan era unions and government itself had been under attack. We had the small government theory which allowed Herbert Hoover to do nothing to help homeless, unemployed and starving people because helping people was not the job of the government. Now the GOP has done Hoover one better where government harming people is ideologically correct.
Unions are weak, and government is privately owned. The reek of fascism is in the air and there is no one to bell the Google cat from eating as many mice as it wants. Sometimes at night I am awakened by a rumble. Sometime it is a truck and sometime I imagine that it is the Founders turning over in their graves.
Since the Regan era unions and government itself had been under attack. We had the small government theory which allowed Herbert Hoover to do nothing to help homeless, unemployed and starving people because helping people was not the job of the government. Now the GOP has done Hoover one better where government harming people is ideologically correct.
Unions are weak, and government is privately owned. The reek of fascism is in the air and there is no one to bell the Google cat from eating as many mice as it wants. Sometimes at night I am awakened by a rumble. Sometime it is a truck and sometime I imagine that it is the Founders turning over in their graves.
12
I'm starting to use Yahoo, it's very good.
2
FYI, Microsoft's Bing provides the underlying search for Yahoo! Search: http://searchengineland.com/yahoo-bing-renegotiate-search-deal-yahoo-gai...
Duckduckgo is a very good search engine that doesn't track you. There are others as well. If we all started to use those smaller search engines, some of Google will wane, but we no longer live in a time when 'markets' can affect search engine providers. It's going to take anti-monopoly actions by an organization strong enough to ignore them - Governments, like it or not.
6
Anything that would name itself after Barney Google, speaks for itself.
1
Under the terms of the International Copyright Treaty data such as text, pictures, PDF's, etc. belongs to the individuals who create it unless specifically assigned. Yet The Silicone Valley Masters of the Digiverse treat all such information as their corporate property. They parse it, sell it, share it, and keep it as though we have no meaningful claim to it.
Big Data, that is **Your Data**, is their real product. If in return they give you free music, games, storage, or social media, they are ripping off not just your wallet but your life. Where are the Libertarians when it comes to this kind of digital piracy? How did the digital pirates get to declare that privacy is dead?
Do you know all they are doing with Your Data? No? Of course not. That's proprietary corporate info. You don't have a need to know. This is not totalitarian government, it is totalitarian capitalism.
Big Data, that is **Your Data**, is their real product. If in return they give you free music, games, storage, or social media, they are ripping off not just your wallet but your life. Where are the Libertarians when it comes to this kind of digital piracy? How did the digital pirates get to declare that privacy is dead?
Do you know all they are doing with Your Data? No? Of course not. That's proprietary corporate info. You don't have a need to know. This is not totalitarian government, it is totalitarian capitalism.
10
Re: "Where are the Libertarians...?" Well, I'm not sure, but I think they're out fighting with the neo-Orwellians (who often adopt the moniker "progressive" -
even though they have little substance in common with "traditional progressives" - or SJW) who have seemingly taken control of the left flank.
We're supplied a steady drip of Outrage to distract us and keep us on hyper drive, hating the "other side".
even though they have little substance in common with "traditional progressives" - or SJW) who have seemingly taken control of the left flank.
We're supplied a steady drip of Outrage to distract us and keep us on hyper drive, hating the "other side".
2
duckduckgo.com is an alternative to Google and they don't monetise you or sell your data
7
Tech has always been mostly men, with a minority of women, some of whom have done very well. Madame Curie and Grace Hopper come to mind. But the "hard" design spaces where the server designers, kernal programmers, and big data analyists work are mostly men.
Why is it this way? I have no idea; let the scientists and philosophers figure that one out. There are some women there, and they seem to do OK, but nobody's telling anyone else how much they get paid. In most companies, it is against policy to disclose your salary. This servers management by keeping these discussions opaque.
In the softer spaces like test engineering, tech writing, and marketing, women make up at least 50% of the workforce, but again nobody is saying what they make, and doing so can get you fired.
In the departments I've worked in the men have tended to have more techincal education and experience. They are more likely to have a AS or BS degree, and to have worked as an engineer or a technician. They probably make more because of it. Again, no one is talking.
Caveat: I don't work at one of those flashy, high-profile companies like Facebook or Google. I have no idea what goes on there, but I suspect that the people who can do the esoteric, tough jobs that are essential to their technology make more money than other people.
Why is it this way? I have no idea; let the scientists and philosophers figure that one out. There are some women there, and they seem to do OK, but nobody's telling anyone else how much they get paid. In most companies, it is against policy to disclose your salary. This servers management by keeping these discussions opaque.
In the softer spaces like test engineering, tech writing, and marketing, women make up at least 50% of the workforce, but again nobody is saying what they make, and doing so can get you fired.
In the departments I've worked in the men have tended to have more techincal education and experience. They are more likely to have a AS or BS degree, and to have worked as an engineer or a technician. They probably make more because of it. Again, no one is talking.
Caveat: I don't work at one of those flashy, high-profile companies like Facebook or Google. I have no idea what goes on there, but I suspect that the people who can do the esoteric, tough jobs that are essential to their technology make more money than other people.
3
It isn't about Google. New technology is disruptive and has been since the beginning of recorded history. Whether iron ending the bronze age, or the plow, or the steam engine. In every case there were winners and losers.
5
Technology and government and capitalism happily married, perhaps. It has been going on for some time.
Elsewhere in "our" universe . . . the report of a documentary about the Voyager probes (technology and government and capitalism) carrying a "message" of humanity forth. And on that "golden record" some music representing all of humanity.
No one on earth, at launch or now, can listen to all of that music as recorded, that "message" WE sent. Most barred by copyright. I wonder what payment aliens are expected to make and how payment is to be sent.
Nothing about technology will ever be "free."
To complete your conclusion: 'Somehow the citizens of the world have been left out of this discussion of our future' and OUR PRESENT.
Elsewhere in "our" universe . . . the report of a documentary about the Voyager probes (technology and government and capitalism) carrying a "message" of humanity forth. And on that "golden record" some music representing all of humanity.
No one on earth, at launch or now, can listen to all of that music as recorded, that "message" WE sent. Most barred by copyright. I wonder what payment aliens are expected to make and how payment is to be sent.
Nothing about technology will ever be "free."
To complete your conclusion: 'Somehow the citizens of the world have been left out of this discussion of our future' and OUR PRESENT.
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." - Henry Ford
On average, you could very well say that people have given up on using their brains and let others do the thinking for them. It takes no effort. They complain about "privacy", but plaster their most personal information online for the world to see, feel "sorry" that the "Mom and Pop" stores close for lack of customers; but when you ask them when was the last time they shopped there you get a blank stare. "Convenience" has come to rule our lives, and WE have let it be so. We now have "information" at our fingertips, but in order for us to get it, we meekly agree to provide the likes of Google our "location", so they can "serve" us better, tailored to "our needs" results. Beware what you wish for...
On average, you could very well say that people have given up on using their brains and let others do the thinking for them. It takes no effort. They complain about "privacy", but plaster their most personal information online for the world to see, feel "sorry" that the "Mom and Pop" stores close for lack of customers; but when you ask them when was the last time they shopped there you get a blank stare. "Convenience" has come to rule our lives, and WE have let it be so. We now have "information" at our fingertips, but in order for us to get it, we meekly agree to provide the likes of Google our "location", so they can "serve" us better, tailored to "our needs" results. Beware what you wish for...
6
Jonathan Taplin had to occasionally "show up for a meeting at 5 a.m. in the Beverly Hills office of Drexel Burnham . . . because Mike Milken, the king of junk bonds at Drexel, would demand it." Subsequently, "Drexel flew too close to the sun." At the time, this opinion writer was silent on the issue of the then prevailing "greed is good" philosophy of business.
Now, that he is no longer a direct beneficiary of the "greed is good" business philosophy, he has transformed himself into a great moralizer in opposition.
Timing is everything. Jonathan Taplin is [now] the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
Now, that he is no longer a direct beneficiary of the "greed is good" business philosophy, he has transformed himself into a great moralizer in opposition.
Timing is everything. Jonathan Taplin is [now] the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
I would much rather order online than visit a brick and mortar store. Let's see there would zero change I would get mugged, don't have to drive my car, save on gas and the list goes on and on.
Now, Google, please hurry your fiber build out in Louisville, KY so I can get decent internet speeds without a cable company.
Now, Google, please hurry your fiber build out in Louisville, KY so I can get decent internet speeds without a cable company.
1
Whimpering like a Steven King character in his alien novel, "Tommyknockers", whose plight was answered by the outer space entity, "Why Ruth! What did you think becoming was?" Another way of saying simply, welcome to capitalism baby. Did you expect it t be any different with Google?
2
I'm sorry but what is the point that you are trying to make here?
That these tech corporations care more about what's good for them (profits) than what's good for the people (what would that even be)? Duh! This is America for god's sake! If this were Russia or Cuba maybe you have a point...
That Google's diversity efforts are too little or too much? And what does that have to do with the rest of the piece....except perhaps it gives you the license to put their name in the title?
That we should be paranoid? That we should be careful... some amount of paranoia about companies is good...and while we are at it, let's also be paranoid about politicians who would say anything to get elected and then do anything to remain in power, shall we?
That these tech corporations care more about what's good for them (profits) than what's good for the people (what would that even be)? Duh! This is America for god's sake! If this were Russia or Cuba maybe you have a point...
That Google's diversity efforts are too little or too much? And what does that have to do with the rest of the piece....except perhaps it gives you the license to put their name in the title?
That we should be paranoid? That we should be careful... some amount of paranoia about companies is good...and while we are at it, let's also be paranoid about politicians who would say anything to get elected and then do anything to remain in power, shall we?
2
So after all the whining against Google and Facebook a great service for which consumer pay basically nothing, what is Mr. Taplin proposing?
That we put a government committee in charge of their hiring and firing decisions? That we put another government committee in charge of their editorial content, so they can be more to the NYT's liking?
Or should split them up like we did with AT&T only to allow them to get back together years later?
There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that was achieve through open competition. What is scary is the NYT thinking that they have a better way to run social networks and search companies.
Scary indeed.
That we put a government committee in charge of their hiring and firing decisions? That we put another government committee in charge of their editorial content, so they can be more to the NYT's liking?
Or should split them up like we did with AT&T only to allow them to get back together years later?
There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that was achieve through open competition. What is scary is the NYT thinking that they have a better way to run social networks and search companies.
Scary indeed.
2
When Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook was The New Religion I almost puked. I thought it was time to give him a dose of reality. This from someone who refuses to use all social media formats. Maybe I was the one not in the real world?
Google is useful but obnoxious. If they aren't watching my every move probably big brother is I assume. How to take back some of the control that we have ceded to the cyber titans through our willing addiction I do not know.
What I can fathom is tech titans as the latest reiteration of despotic CEO's that America so loves.
Google is useful but obnoxious. If they aren't watching my every move probably big brother is I assume. How to take back some of the control that we have ceded to the cyber titans through our willing addiction I do not know.
What I can fathom is tech titans as the latest reiteration of despotic CEO's that America so loves.
2
Mr. Taplin joining in with Alt-Right to attack Google on the day that events at Charlottesville transpired explains why liberal progressivism in losing for years.
hired the best, the brightest and forget all the other nonsense . this really is the crybaby generation.
2
Don't ever trust a monopoly...you just know they are up to no good!
1
Europe is looking better and better
1
Why not Mexico?
I am shocked, shocked to learn that Google doesn't want what's best for me. But please tell me, who DOES want what's best for me? It seems to me that I had problems with my own mother on that question. So who is it? The Democratic Party? Pope Francis? Jonathan Taplin? Should I get a dog?
3
The truth is this article takes advantage of the dalmore furore to push an unrelated agenda. Regardless of FANG's other issues I applaud Google's support of diversity against the white men only culture of dalmore et al. And btw the editorial page of the nyt looks a lot like silicon valley when it comes to race.
1
The tech boys are one dimensional, social idiot savants. Because they are brilliant in one domain they think themselves smart, informed and well rounded. They are not.
In another era, these are the guys who would spend their time on cars, or anything mechanical, or technical. They were freaks then; they still are, but with a lot more money.
In another era, these are the guys who would spend their time on cars, or anything mechanical, or technical. They were freaks then; they still are, but with a lot more money.
6
People get what they ask for. People will search for topics on google tha they would never want their family or friends to know, ignoring that google saves every search. Google knows everyone's darkest secrets because we freely give it to them. That's on us.
17
Google and Amazon have both reached a level of control that wildly exceeds that of the great monopolies of a century ago. Unlike Ma Bell, which was closely regulated by federal and state government to prevent violations of federally-protected civil rights, Google and Amazon have total freedom, and they now are in the process of redefining basic personal liberty.
They are state actors who exert the power of a supranational government and who now have the ability to override fundamental liberties. They are in a class by themselves, and should not be sheltered by the ordinary presumption that what is good for American business is good for the USA.
They are state actors who exert the power of a supranational government and who now have the ability to override fundamental liberties. They are in a class by themselves, and should not be sheltered by the ordinary presumption that what is good for American business is good for the USA.
4
Appropriate regulation is not socialism, and socialism is not communism, contrary to what 0.01%rs such as Peter (all for me none for you) Thiel would have his Republican and conservative sycophants believe.
Yes, we have a "Capitalist Democracy" and we also have a "Society" wherein we rely on government to provide the balance. The scale is now clearly weighted in favor of the millionaires and billionaires who have bought OUR government. We need to regain balance.
How? By taxing the rich and using the money for education, health care, infrastructure and the attendant jobs.
Yes, we have a "Capitalist Democracy" and we also have a "Society" wherein we rely on government to provide the balance. The scale is now clearly weighted in favor of the millionaires and billionaires who have bought OUR government. We need to regain balance.
How? By taxing the rich and using the money for education, health care, infrastructure and the attendant jobs.
6
Exactly. Folks should read up on the Social Market Economy that was intentionally designed after WWII in Germany. All these decades later that version of defanged capitalism is still the economic powerhouse of Europe.
1
Neither Google, Amazon or Facebook is essential to anyone's life, unless you let it. I make an effort to make my purchases from local brick & mortar stores as much as I can to help the local economy. I think we would be much better off if everyone did this.
Devin Miller's comment below may be true but is still not a justification for Mr. Damore's memo. Different does not mean better, or worse.
Devin Miller's comment below may be true but is still not a justification for Mr. Damore's memo. Different does not mean better, or worse.
6
I don't see, why the dismissal of James Damore is included in this article. My opinion is, that "Free Speech" and a "Frank Discussion" don't mean, that one says what is on her or his mind without considering that other people might feel insulted (with or without intention of the author).
Ultimately, Google had to make a decision and they had to protect their business. In a similiar circumstance, I probably would have reacted the way they did.
As a consumer, I am free to pick a search engine or a retailer or any business, that lives the standards that I do. Or I can pick a competitor, if that is not the case. I can choose which data I make available or not. So there is a lot that I can do to protect my interests.
Ultimately, Google had to make a decision and they had to protect their business. In a similiar circumstance, I probably would have reacted the way they did.
As a consumer, I am free to pick a search engine or a retailer or any business, that lives the standards that I do. Or I can pick a competitor, if that is not the case. I can choose which data I make available or not. So there is a lot that I can do to protect my interests.
1
Go ahead, choose another search engine. There are still a few alternatives, but in reality the competition is pretty thin.
This article exactly articulates what has been running through my mind now for quite some time! I've been thinking that Silicon Valley needs to be reined in somehow. I'm 84 yeas old, I love the ability to text, email, carefully (and I have to emphasize that word!) looking up information, yes, through Google, but I feel my privacy has been invaded, we now have a President who tweets, as do most other politicos, Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, rumors of certain Silicon Valley "geniuses" with their sights on the White House....and so on and on.
I do not like the idea of these "whippersnappers" running my life or this country!
I don't really think most social media, tweeting, etc. has done a lot to improve our country or our lives!
I do not like the idea of these "whippersnappers" running my life or this country!
I don't really think most social media, tweeting, etc. has done a lot to improve our country or our lives!
10
Any small business owner who has experienced Google's "reviews" aka extortion, following Yelp's model, but much worse as they are a search engine with more power, knows Google does not want what is best for us. I wrote to Google when a woman who had never met me nor used my business wrote a one page ranting negative "review." It was against Google's own policy which is they will not post reviews like this and this was confirmed via email by their own representative. The Google employee emailed she would remove the review, and did show a screen shot showing it had been removed, but most of the email was requesting I call her to pay Google for advertising. I did not and within a month the "review" was back up. When I contacted the same employee she now said she could not remove it. I hope the public realizes these "review" sites all have similar practices of extortion which basically blackmail small business owners to pay for their protection, oops advertising.
12
It is well-known that the head of Apple, Steve Jobs, limited his children’s use of technology. This interview with Jobs is acutely enlightening:
“So, your kids must love the iPad?” I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The company’s first tablet was just hitting the shelves. “They haven’t used it,” he told me. “We limit how much technology our kids use at home.” [Nick Bilton, “Steve Jobs Was a Low-Tech Parent,” The New York Times (September 11, 2014)]
“So, your kids must love the iPad?” I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The company’s first tablet was just hitting the shelves. “They haven’t used it,” he told me. “We limit how much technology our kids use at home.” [Nick Bilton, “Steve Jobs Was a Low-Tech Parent,” The New York Times (September 11, 2014)]
9
The Russians have a saying that, "Free cheese can only be found in mouse traps." When we are careless with our online privacy and data, companies will enrich themselves with it under the auspices of it being "free" only to build something we then perceive as essential. We used to be "the land of free" but now that has taken on a whole new meaning.
Have we become so weak as a society that we can't help ourselves but use Facebook and consider no alternatives?
Have we become so weak as a society that we can't help ourselves but use Facebook and consider no alternatives?
7
Way to not mention the science on the issue even once.
I'll let Stanford's Medical School speak for me:
"Over the past 15 years or so, there’s been a sea change as new technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work."
I'll let Stanford's Medical School speak for me:
"Over the past 15 years or so, there’s been a sea change as new technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work."
1
Reference, please. Difference does not mean superiority/inferiority nor less competence in specific areas.
1
and in fact Damore should have been fired because his understanding of science was so bad.
1
Yes, but read the broadly in the literature and more closely: the inherent differences are much smaller than individual variation in ability.
OK?
Biology is NOT destiny.
OK?
Biology is NOT destiny.
3
Sober assessment on a monopoly we have come to 'like', and need, if we are to make things happen for our community and for ourselves. Google needs a lot of honest introspection so to not abuise it's power, and hopefully use it wisely, for our benefit. Given that we humans tend to abuse others when in a position of power, sensible regulation is of the essence. I 'know' Google's top officers know about the crossroads ahead of them, and of all those in their 'net', and further, that they honestly are trying to be magnanimous and avoid an assault of our souls. Call me naive, but IF we loose basic trust in an entity with so much power and, at the same time, with so much benefit to our daily lives, we are doomed.
Ask yourself what the US Congress and Supreme Court would have done in, say 1958, if Ma Bell the telephone monopoly, and Bell Labs were recording and listening to every phone call everyone made, linking them to your phone number and street address and selling transcript compilations of private conversations among all US citizens to anyone who would pay them for it. The Country would have been outraged. The Europeans are right to put an end to what these tech monopolies are doing.
10
I am not sure if you are aware, but the leaders of AT&T and Bell Labs at that time had "Secret Schedules" where they went and consulted with the national intelligence apparatus of the US of the time (this is documented extensively in the book Idea Factory, and other locations). They gave the NSA, etc, direct access to the call system infrastructure with the ability to record any conversation at any time. The country wasn't outraged because it was kept secret (fewer people leaked in those days).
2
Expected a comment like this. Yes, of course; it was the Cold War and national security was seen as the duty of the Executive Branch of central government. In those days, however, engineers were widely understood to be narrow focus, mathematically-inclined knuckleheads who required supervision by persons with a broad education, and a mature perspective (ask the wife of any retired engineer about that). While immersed in their computer games, the engineer knuckleheads stumbled into a digital hardware and software infrastructure setup that evolved into a defacto utility for the general economy, and wall street lawyers built a legal fortress around themselves and the engineering knuckleheads to reap the financial windfall of the situation, forever if possible. The problem is, rich knuckleheads are still knuckleheads. Knuckleheads do a poor job of leading anything, and it's time to bust up this dysfunctional scenario and kill this fantasy that it can last forever.
Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, once one of the great newspapers of the world.
Twice in the past two months, a Washington Post reporter has stated publically that he used an "anonymous" document as the source for a front page political article. This would be unthinkable for any journalist to do, and for any editor to print.
The Post is doing it. Jeff Bezos, an internet billionaire, is no journalist.
Put the pieces together.
We are being manipulated by those who control what we think. And we think it's OK because that's what they want us to think.
Welcome to 1984.
Twice in the past two months, a Washington Post reporter has stated publically that he used an "anonymous" document as the source for a front page political article. This would be unthinkable for any journalist to do, and for any editor to print.
The Post is doing it. Jeff Bezos, an internet billionaire, is no journalist.
Put the pieces together.
We are being manipulated by those who control what we think. And we think it's OK because that's what they want us to think.
Welcome to 1984.
7
What abou the Pentagon Papers? Was publishing those documents journalistically irresponsible?
1
No, because the people who published them hadn't created them. That's the real evil.
Disclaimer: I've worked as an engineer at Google for 4 years.
Peter Thiel is an outlier in the mostly-progressive Valley, to the extent that in 2016 he became a personal non grata in many circles for his views. He's also unaffiliated with Google.
James Damore is one engineer at a company of tens of thousands, and his doc was met with overwhelming condemnation internally. People started referring to it only as "the doc" once they realized that the chorus of vocal denunciations by name was directing attention to it and feeding the flames (unfortunately, too late). As a practical matter he could not continue working at Google because no one would work with him.
Google is genuinely attempting to address this problem. I've personally spent nearly a full work week so far this year at diversity inclusion events (2 separate full-day sessions, 3 town-hall type events, 3 classes). I'm not complaining - the sessions were very well-run, forcing attendees to "grapple" with these issues despite discomfort. Multiply that out across the many (highly-paid) engineers at Google, and you have some pretty expensive "lip service." And after all, it *is* a business - money follows the company's priorities.
Peter Thiel is an outlier in the mostly-progressive Valley, to the extent that in 2016 he became a personal non grata in many circles for his views. He's also unaffiliated with Google.
James Damore is one engineer at a company of tens of thousands, and his doc was met with overwhelming condemnation internally. People started referring to it only as "the doc" once they realized that the chorus of vocal denunciations by name was directing attention to it and feeding the flames (unfortunately, too late). As a practical matter he could not continue working at Google because no one would work with him.
Google is genuinely attempting to address this problem. I've personally spent nearly a full work week so far this year at diversity inclusion events (2 separate full-day sessions, 3 town-hall type events, 3 classes). I'm not complaining - the sessions were very well-run, forcing attendees to "grapple" with these issues despite discomfort. Multiply that out across the many (highly-paid) engineers at Google, and you have some pretty expensive "lip service." And after all, it *is* a business - money follows the company's priorities.
10
How many middle-aged white guys run or work in the Google Office of Diversity and Inclusion (or any similar office in any company in America)?
1
I would not say that Facebook is essential.
15
"Libertarianism" is nothing more than a rationale for bullying and freeloading in a country that believes desperation is the best motivation.
11
Gee; block a person (of color, or race, or religion, or sexual orientation) from getting a good education or job; stand in the doorway of a college so they can’t get an education; refuse to hire them; ship the only job they could get to another country; then complain about their complaining. Who’s doing the bullying?
2
As a culture, a society, we need to begin altering the base line of the tech conversation that has been going of for some time. The trope mentioned by this author; "if you are not paying for it, you aren’t the customer — you’re the product” is a valid one.
All of these social media platforms and search engines have their businesses founded on the backs of free information. It's all that monitoring, etc., information that they garner and collect from their customer/user base. We give it all freely. They then turn-around, repackaged that data and sell it for myriad purposes.
They have built a business empire on the back of that dynamic. Some would say it's the philosophical relationship of the Leech. But I get it. I'm a Capitalist. I appreciate what they have done. However as that Capitalist I say the conversation now needs to change.
You (Google, Facebook, et.al.) want to use my data? You want to garner value off of tracking my every move, purchase and desire? Fine. PAY ME for every piece of data your glean from me. It's my actions, my data, you are using. Pay me else go away. Ours is a Capitalistic society. and I think this is a preeminently logical conversation to have. Don't you?
John~
American Net'Zen
All of these social media platforms and search engines have their businesses founded on the backs of free information. It's all that monitoring, etc., information that they garner and collect from their customer/user base. We give it all freely. They then turn-around, repackaged that data and sell it for myriad purposes.
They have built a business empire on the back of that dynamic. Some would say it's the philosophical relationship of the Leech. But I get it. I'm a Capitalist. I appreciate what they have done. However as that Capitalist I say the conversation now needs to change.
You (Google, Facebook, et.al.) want to use my data? You want to garner value off of tracking my every move, purchase and desire? Fine. PAY ME for every piece of data your glean from me. It's my actions, my data, you are using. Pay me else go away. Ours is a Capitalistic society. and I think this is a preeminently logical conversation to have. Don't you?
John~
American Net'Zen
6
Here's one small step - use Firefox with the very famous security add-on NoScript, which blocks Google's scripts that run in EVERY SINGLE web page and replaces it with a dummy.
8
Thanks for the tip. I've been using Firefox for years and had never run across that add-on, although I've run across the need for it frequently. I'm checking it out right now. Traditionally, I've dealt with such issues by simply disabling my computer's network connection. All of a sudden, activity drops to zero and things get quiet, like when I'm reading the Times. Just paging down an article can start a flurry of Internet activity as ads and who knows what else are loaded. I do appreciate the need for advertising, I just wish it were the old-fashioned, picture-on-a-page variety
There's also another plugin called Disconnect that prevents advertisers from tracking your web browsing.
All I want is someone to provide me an old fashioned telephone sitting on my desk, a good typewriter, a receptionist, and someone at the bank who works there longer than two weeks.
5
Lumping Peter Thiel and Jeff Bezos together with Googles's chief executive Sundar Pichai is as shoddy as James Damore's sophomoric outburst of "proven" scientific studies about the differences between men and women in science.
Google is trying to encourage, support, and recruit more women into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics for code work at Google. Google wants the best for women who reach for the stars in their careers. Google is a successful enterprise which is used daily by millions and it wants women to be a part of its success too.
Google is trying to encourage, support, and recruit more women into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics for code work at Google. Google wants the best for women who reach for the stars in their careers. Google is a successful enterprise which is used daily by millions and it wants women to be a part of its success too.
2
During the mid-1960s, shortly after Allen Westin's widely-noted book about computers and privacy came out, I asked my father for his views. An internationally recognized computer pioneer, and uncommonly prescient about technology trends, he gave a simple response: to preserve privacy, pass appropriate laws and, if someone violates them, lock them up. Was he ever mistaken!
I tell this story to point out that our predicament with so-called "tech" companies is nothing new. Americans have turned a blind eye and let it metastisize.
American politicians, pundits, and others have genuflected before "tech" for years. They've let "tech" companies engage in monopolistic, unethical, and even illegal (think Uber) behavior with no consequence. Finally, European governments are stepping up; American governments persist in sucking their thumbs.
Now the so-called internet of things (IoT) is bursting on us. Gadgets and everyday appliances will be "internet-enabled," creating a new dimension of spying on ordinary citizens. Already, a TV manufacturer was called to account for embedding spying devices and not informing customers.
If current trends continue, that will shortly seem quaint. Orwellian surveillance will be upon us. If Americans do not care because IoT seems "cool," and because it isn't *government* surveillance, they don't understand freedom.
I tell this story to point out that our predicament with so-called "tech" companies is nothing new. Americans have turned a blind eye and let it metastisize.
American politicians, pundits, and others have genuflected before "tech" for years. They've let "tech" companies engage in monopolistic, unethical, and even illegal (think Uber) behavior with no consequence. Finally, European governments are stepping up; American governments persist in sucking their thumbs.
Now the so-called internet of things (IoT) is bursting on us. Gadgets and everyday appliances will be "internet-enabled," creating a new dimension of spying on ordinary citizens. Already, a TV manufacturer was called to account for embedding spying devices and not informing customers.
If current trends continue, that will shortly seem quaint. Orwellian surveillance will be upon us. If Americans do not care because IoT seems "cool," and because it isn't *government* surveillance, they don't understand freedom.
12
Campaign donations drive it all.
1
Google is a public traded company as is US Steel, GM, Was-Mart, Facebook and Apple and their first priority is profits and market shares. Anyone who thinks different is fooling themselves the tech companies have good PR people who tell them what to say that misleads the public into thing that they are caring companies that put people and environment first and profits second. The new CEO stands on stage in blue jeans and open collar shirt giving the impression that they are like us ordinary folks and later are escorted out with bodyguards into chauffeur driven cars to their multi-million dollar homes.
3
Americans pretend the market gives us what we want.
What a joke. The market daily demands our money, our privacy, our unquestioning fealty, and self-absorbed, slobbering Americans beg to hand it over and comply.
"Lookit me! I'm on facebook! Everyone should be!"
This is a craven, pathetic nation.
What a joke. The market daily demands our money, our privacy, our unquestioning fealty, and self-absorbed, slobbering Americans beg to hand it over and comply.
"Lookit me! I'm on facebook! Everyone should be!"
This is a craven, pathetic nation.
6
that quote from thiel certainly does not say that women shouldn't have the vote.
1
I never signed up for a smart phone, don't worship at the altar of Google and do my own internet searches. Increasingly, people who live and breathe via these systems, seem more and more homogenized to me; relatively few programmers are determining how they think. We just had a Presidential election decided by voters who read two sentence news "stories" on their smart phones.
The high tech world is mainly men talking to men about men, and politics is the same, where men also tell women what to do. Google, Facebook, etc., are where you allow yourself to be programmed! Hang up your phones, quit using Google and use your heads before they are completely empty, people.
The high tech world is mainly men talking to men about men, and politics is the same, where men also tell women what to do. Google, Facebook, etc., are where you allow yourself to be programmed! Hang up your phones, quit using Google and use your heads before they are completely empty, people.
4
"To perish at 60" - lives taken by a need to be connected. Not real deaths, but cultural ones, ones that are false connections.
1
Blame Google. Blame the government. Blame over-regulation or deregulation, data pollution, misogynistic brogrammers or women's liberation. Blame anything and everything you wish, but eventually adults will be forced to take responsibility for themselves or live with the costs.
Facebook and Google are similar to alcohol and recreational drugs -- addictive only when users consistently overindulge. Worried about fake news? Check the source before reading ridiculous posts from online friends you've never actually met. Concerned about having your online searches tracked? Find a tracker-free search engine and use it consistently. Learn to blow off ads designed to grab viewers' attention. For a surprising insight into marketing dynamics watch TV commercials with the sound turned off.
Don't allow people with agendas to curate your viewing habits. Humans with power have never acted in anyone's best interest but their own.
Facebook and Google are similar to alcohol and recreational drugs -- addictive only when users consistently overindulge. Worried about fake news? Check the source before reading ridiculous posts from online friends you've never actually met. Concerned about having your online searches tracked? Find a tracker-free search engine and use it consistently. Learn to blow off ads designed to grab viewers' attention. For a surprising insight into marketing dynamics watch TV commercials with the sound turned off.
Don't allow people with agendas to curate your viewing habits. Humans with power have never acted in anyone's best interest but their own.
4
I have another idea. Blow off any and all ads. When you want something online, use Google to look for it, and after you buy it, ignore ads to sell you more of whatever it is.
I bought a telescope recently. Now I see ads for telescopes every time I go online, as if I need more than one telescope. Their AI isn't all that bright, is it?
Advertising only works on those who allow it to work.
I bought a telescope recently. Now I see ads for telescopes every time I go online, as if I need more than one telescope. Their AI isn't all that bright, is it?
Advertising only works on those who allow it to work.
2
Let's see, Alphabet, which owns Google, and is a for-profit enterprise doesn't want what's best for us? And this is an epiphany?
For profit enterprises exist to serve their stockholders and stakeholders.
Point-finis.
And somehow Taplin believes this is responsible for a gender gap in silicon valley? The gender composition of Google's work force is more a function of the population of women with technical backgrounds than anything else. And Google is hardly an outlier in that regard, despite the recent kerfuffle over one male employees opinion letter on the topic of female suitability for technical jobs. The guy should have been fired, period.
Taplin's opinion piece is one more example of media run awry. Cable news and the 24 hour news cycle, and the need to fill the space, have caused the lines between opinion and reporting to blur considerably. And editing for substance was thrown out the window, in the process.
Sorry, NYT, you failed the test on this one. Did we really need to hear that Taplin had to meet with Michael Milken at 5am, and that Milken went to jail?
The piece needed an ego-ectomy; and some critical thinking. Is the problem that Google has a monopolistic hold on the search engine market? Or that there are cro-magnon engineers working for them?
Is our democracy really undermined by Google and Amazon? Facebook, may be a different matter, as an unedited rumormonger.
For profit enterprises exist to serve their stockholders and stakeholders.
Point-finis.
And somehow Taplin believes this is responsible for a gender gap in silicon valley? The gender composition of Google's work force is more a function of the population of women with technical backgrounds than anything else. And Google is hardly an outlier in that regard, despite the recent kerfuffle over one male employees opinion letter on the topic of female suitability for technical jobs. The guy should have been fired, period.
Taplin's opinion piece is one more example of media run awry. Cable news and the 24 hour news cycle, and the need to fill the space, have caused the lines between opinion and reporting to blur considerably. And editing for substance was thrown out the window, in the process.
Sorry, NYT, you failed the test on this one. Did we really need to hear that Taplin had to meet with Michael Milken at 5am, and that Milken went to jail?
The piece needed an ego-ectomy; and some critical thinking. Is the problem that Google has a monopolistic hold on the search engine market? Or that there are cro-magnon engineers working for them?
Is our democracy really undermined by Google and Amazon? Facebook, may be a different matter, as an unedited rumormonger.
1
I love Google, Amazon, Netflix and Apple. I don't like Facebook so I don't use it.
Ya'll are paranoid.
Ya'll are paranoid.
I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords!
1
Google's diatribe on women and tech proficiency is not new. It is an updated confirmation of Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve. This scholarship is not found on Google. It comes from the Catacombs of university libraries, atheneums, and paperbound tomes replete with bibliographies and footnotes.
2
Charles Murray was wrong in the 1990s. Those who espouse similar views now are even more wrong as we have even more actual science showing how ridiculous it is to attach differences in test scores to biology.
I recently was forced to abandon my Windows phone and was sent an 'Android/Google' and was shocked and angered by the manipulation that came with it practically forcing my every decision through a Google funnel.... I sent it back even while my geek neighbor marveled at how his phone could tell him how long it would take for him to drive to work...
WHO NEEDS IT ? And at what cost ?
For that matter, why do so many so willingly cede their autonomy to Facebook and for what ??? My God, it's mostly drivel...
We wonder how we got here ? We wonder why the evidence that we are still a serious people is disappearing quickly ?
So I can know how long it will take me to drive to the Apple store ????????
Good Lord, we're such saps, who roll over and sell our souls for pennies....
WHO NEEDS IT ? And at what cost ?
For that matter, why do so many so willingly cede their autonomy to Facebook and for what ??? My God, it's mostly drivel...
We wonder how we got here ? We wonder why the evidence that we are still a serious people is disappearing quickly ?
So I can know how long it will take me to drive to the Apple store ????????
Good Lord, we're such saps, who roll over and sell our souls for pennies....
3
I doubt he Times will publish this, but it is worth a try.
So far duckduckgo.com is great. No ads from a search pop up when am reading the Times. They promise privacy.
This past week, the Times published two obituaries of women whose contributions to mathematics were enormous. Whereas ducktape holds the universe together, math makes it function,
So far duckduckgo.com is great. No ads from a search pop up when am reading the Times. They promise privacy.
This past week, the Times published two obituaries of women whose contributions to mathematics were enormous. Whereas ducktape holds the universe together, math makes it function,
2
Ha ha. I think it's funny that at least half of Americans pay some of their hard-earned money to be mobile billboards. They walk around with a corporate name or logo visible to everyone whose eyes function. Yet, they have no control... right, whatever you say.
'Big Brother' ain't no laughing matter with Google and Facebook on the scene surreptitiously interfering in our lives. They may not be "doing evil" at the present moment but how long should we wait to find out? The potential for total control is in their hands. Is this the future we wish?
3
I despise the impact of google on one of my favorite Michigan cities- Ann Arbor. They are allowed to run over local diversity causing the city to no longer be affordable to live in.
1
Long ago, Google's motto was 'Don't be evil.' (Think I'm kidding? Google it...).
If there were any truth in advertising, their slogan today would be: 'We're evil...and greedy, too.'
Amazon and Google - both out of control monsters.
If there were any truth in advertising, their slogan today would be: 'We're evil...and greedy, too.'
Amazon and Google - both out of control monsters.
4
I don't believe for a New York second that tech companies want to take over. What folk like Taplin fear is that tech companies help distribute free information, without "progressive" control. "Progressive" power cannot exist without censorship.
What about Congress? Do they know whats best for us or is it the lobbyists and super pacs that get them elected who know whats best for us.
1
Monopolies are happening all over the country, bigger than ever---how many choices do you have for your internet? Its speed? Political decisions make our internet slower than Korea, expensive w/ lousy customer service.
With the current deregulatory fever there's little chance DC will put the country's good first.
At least the EU has a commissioner for anti-trust. Here if it's good for business/profit margins it's good, period.
It's not like "we" are ceding anything.
With the current deregulatory fever there's little chance DC will put the country's good first.
At least the EU has a commissioner for anti-trust. Here if it's good for business/profit margins it's good, period.
It's not like "we" are ceding anything.
2
While I have not read the full writings of damore, from what I have read, it is not an offending work, if what I have read is the gist of it, then the liberal mob that thrives off of vilification is twisting this into lies. If what I have read is are the main points, then it is simply a differing viewpoint and I believe he cited credible studies and his intentions were constructive, but every left leaning piece I've read acts as if he had just said women shouldn't be able to vote or that men are superior in all respects. No, he pointed out that men and women are different, which they are regardless of how much liberals pretend and scream otherwise, and sought to help include women more by taking those differences into account. If someone is closed minded (in this specific case, liberals), but fervently believes themselves to be open minded, how do you get them to know and accept reality if the fact that they are closed minded means they will not listen, only hear?
2
He said ALL women are too neurotic and unable to handle pressure.
That's bigotry.
That's bigotry.
1
"Viewers of the comedy series “Silicon Valley” note that uber-libertarianism and uber-geek machismo go hand in hand." And they wouldn't let them put it on a comedy show if it weren't true, would they?
3
I worked in the Silicon Valley in the 90s. An exciting time. I LOVED the early eBay, Netscape, games, etc. But as they got big too many companies got too big for their britches.
No one HAS to use Google or Facebook. This new culture that thinks they have to share every meal or experience online bewilders me. What do you have left to talk about with your friends when you get together? Oh, right, no getting together for socializing much anymore. Just drinking and partying and gaming.
I use an alternate search engine called Duck-duck-go. I stay off social media.
I have time to meet with friends and talk. And I am funneling my money to smaller companies to encourage them to hang in there.
JUST SAY NO to the people who want to remake the world to fit their own warped views.
No one HAS to use Google or Facebook. This new culture that thinks they have to share every meal or experience online bewilders me. What do you have left to talk about with your friends when you get together? Oh, right, no getting together for socializing much anymore. Just drinking and partying and gaming.
I use an alternate search engine called Duck-duck-go. I stay off social media.
I have time to meet with friends and talk. And I am funneling my money to smaller companies to encourage them to hang in there.
JUST SAY NO to the people who want to remake the world to fit their own warped views.
3
I'm a computer programmer. This article is just plain stupid. The person who wrote it says, "tools like Google and Facebook have become so essential and because we have almost no choice in whether to use them, we need to consider the role they play in our lives." Nonsense! The only thing you need to consider is if you want to use their products. So, let me help you out. If you want to search the Internet, but you don't want to be tracked, use this: http://www.duckduckgo.com
Next, if you don't want people to know anything about you, don't use Facebook. I don't have a Facebook account. I never have. I thought Facebook was dumb when it came out. I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg. Why would you? I think people just wanted to track down their exes from high school. Anyway, I can lead a horse to water...
Next, if you don't want people to know anything about you, don't use Facebook. I don't have a Facebook account. I never have. I thought Facebook was dumb when it came out. I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg. Why would you? I think people just wanted to track down their exes from high school. Anyway, I can lead a horse to water...
3
Mark, we both agree that duckduckgo is a better search engine than google. We should look for ways to spread the news. Every time I mention duckduckgo to someone, that person has never heard of it. Dogpile is on the list I reference, and it is almost as old at the internet. It is incomprehensible that google should seen as "essential," when it isn't.
1
The newest Google search program is awful. You are much more likely to go immediately to what you are looking for if you use Duckduckgo.com, as most of my friends and I have been doing. Googlescholar is good, but of use to almost no one except academics. Here is a list of alternative search engines you might consider: https://www.lifewire.com/best-search-engines-2483352
'Peter Thiel ...wrote in 2009 on a blog affiliated with the Cato Institute that “since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”
If women should not even have the vote, why should we worry about gender diversity in the engineering ranks?'
Has the idea that women should not even have the vote been deduced from this correctly?
You have referred to the memo: ''the internal misogynistic “brogrammer” rhetoric was too extreme'. Not a fair characterization in my view. Does this kind of labeling constitute a rhetoric of its own?
'Google had to fire the offending engineer, James Damore, but anyone who spends time on the message boards frequented by Valley engineers will know that the “bro” culture that gave us Gamergate — an online movement that targeted women in the video game industry — is much more prevalent than Mr. Pichai wants to acknowledge'.
We have to take your word about what these people know, and we have to be privy to Mr. Pichai's state of mind as well.
Regarding the one or more Google employees posting opponents profile pictures to Breitbart: Is Breitbart best characterized as 'an element of the internet'? Leaks are ubiquitous left to right. Is collegiality fostered in an environment of shutting people up?
If women should not even have the vote, why should we worry about gender diversity in the engineering ranks?'
Has the idea that women should not even have the vote been deduced from this correctly?
You have referred to the memo: ''the internal misogynistic “brogrammer” rhetoric was too extreme'. Not a fair characterization in my view. Does this kind of labeling constitute a rhetoric of its own?
'Google had to fire the offending engineer, James Damore, but anyone who spends time on the message boards frequented by Valley engineers will know that the “bro” culture that gave us Gamergate — an online movement that targeted women in the video game industry — is much more prevalent than Mr. Pichai wants to acknowledge'.
We have to take your word about what these people know, and we have to be privy to Mr. Pichai's state of mind as well.
Regarding the one or more Google employees posting opponents profile pictures to Breitbart: Is Breitbart best characterized as 'an element of the internet'? Leaks are ubiquitous left to right. Is collegiality fostered in an environment of shutting people up?
The capitalist system is driven by the male ego and the thirst for money and power. Just another extension of 'Game of Thrones" version "who the heck knows." The ability to do so with phony and pseudo memes on making your life "better" is just easier on the conscience.
1
Of course we could always think about enforcing anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws which are still relevant in the age of high technology
6
Okay one more time: Google had every right to fire Damore for his memo because - as conservatives usually remind us with unrelenting regularity - there is no Constitutional protection of corporate employees' free speech because a corporation isn't the government. (The fact that conservatives may dearly wish the government were a corporation is another issue, as is their idea of who should be free to speak and who should not. )
8
Google's influence could be significantly mitigated if each of us would use another search engine. I have switched to DuckDuckGo with no loss of search functionality, with a significant increase in privacy, and a contribution to democracy--,at no cost or effort.
6
Everyone thinks Google is so fantastic, almost perfect in its capture of information about us and generation of revenue off that. I purposely do not use Google for any searches. I use alternative resources to make them work a little harder. Yes, I do use Gmail, and that's where they harvest far more than they do in search. I buy a clothing item online, and the store (not Amazon) sends me a confirming email with all the details. For months - yes, months! - I then see ads for the exact same items and company everywhere I go online. Is this great technology? No, it's fauly decisions based on minimal information. Or they see the name of a disease in an email I send to a close friend, offering support. So then I see ads everywhere for pharmaceutical solutions for that disease. I don't have the disease, but they think I do. So no. I don't see Google as a grand and glorious solution to life's problems. They're merely hucksters like everyone elsse. I do my best to just ignore them.
5
If we're talking about threats to our lives, I think it is more appropo to substitute Google with Government. Google and Facebook and Amazon, et al are the natural result of virtually unrestrained free enterprise. The big fish eating the little has been going on for decades and as a result the cost of goods and services have been going up unchecked by healthy competition while at the same time earnings have stagnated for all except those at or near the top. Simply put, Government Doesn't Want What's Best for Us. Government is manipulated to serve the best interests of the politicians and the plutocrats.
The issues of privacy, Big Data and net neutrality are also regulated by government but not to the satisfaction or protection of mainstream America. Congress serves the greed of plutocrats who want the power to control and manipulate our lives.
The issues of privacy, Big Data and net neutrality are also regulated by government but not to the satisfaction or protection of mainstream America. Congress serves the greed of plutocrats who want the power to control and manipulate our lives.
4
I am suspicious of every corporation - I don't believe that we have any left that have a trace of morality as the basis for business policy. If morality, good behavior, social conscience helps sell, then perhaps, they will go in that direction. Right up until it stops benefitting the bottom line three months from now. No large company is looking at the long term benefits, or the national benefits of their existence.
As a worker I am disposable. I have gone from being personnel, to a human resource, to an asset, to an unnecessary expense. As a customer, I am like an aphid in an ant hill. Milk me dry. Then do it again, or dispose of me.
So do I feel that Google is righteous in firing the engineer who feels that women are genetically unsuited for the proper emotional attitude to work in tech? Well, the attitude affects the bottom line, so he is disposable. I am not sure how many who voted to jettison him don't secretly agree.
The very fact that Google recognized that a slogan "Don't be Evil" was both necessary and a selling point, says it all.
As a worker I am disposable. I have gone from being personnel, to a human resource, to an asset, to an unnecessary expense. As a customer, I am like an aphid in an ant hill. Milk me dry. Then do it again, or dispose of me.
So do I feel that Google is righteous in firing the engineer who feels that women are genetically unsuited for the proper emotional attitude to work in tech? Well, the attitude affects the bottom line, so he is disposable. I am not sure how many who voted to jettison him don't secretly agree.
The very fact that Google recognized that a slogan "Don't be Evil" was both necessary and a selling point, says it all.
3
I'm surprised that Google hasn't used the massive data intelligence they have on us and the real-time searches we do, and apply it to investing on Wall Street. Google has more real life global market intelligence than all the Goldmans and Deutsche Banks of the world. Then again, maybe they are!
1
Thank you Captain Obvious, but it doesn't begin and end with sexism.
Silicon Valley commands the vast majority of H-1B visas, of which there are nearly one million visa holders presently working in the US. The tech industry says that those visa holders offer skills not present in America, but it is simply not true. Rather, those visa holders do the same work for dramatically less pay, driving out or beggaring American workers.
Worse still, nearly all of the H-1B visa holders are from India: WHITHER DIVERSITY? And although an American recruiter cannot tell the difference between a Dalit and a Brahmin, Indian recruiters can and do, and so our visa program reinforces the repugnant, classist caste system that should not even exist on our shores.
Silicon Valley commands the vast majority of H-1B visas, of which there are nearly one million visa holders presently working in the US. The tech industry says that those visa holders offer skills not present in America, but it is simply not true. Rather, those visa holders do the same work for dramatically less pay, driving out or beggaring American workers.
Worse still, nearly all of the H-1B visa holders are from India: WHITHER DIVERSITY? And although an American recruiter cannot tell the difference between a Dalit and a Brahmin, Indian recruiters can and do, and so our visa program reinforces the repugnant, classist caste system that should not even exist on our shores.
12
The only person who's opinions are cited is Peter Thiel, someone who seems to have nothing to do with the company. Hunting down the most radical opinion you can find, and smearing everyone with his opinions makes it pretty clear this is basically a hit piece. The use of fictional TV shows and movies as supportive evidence does not improve this picture.
If you think that Silicon Valley is too sexist, surely firing someone for expressing sexist opinions is a good thing? At least a step in the right direction? But no, everything must be portrayed in the most sinister manner possible.
If you think that Silicon Valley is too sexist, surely firing someone for expressing sexist opinions is a good thing? At least a step in the right direction? But no, everything must be portrayed in the most sinister manner possible.
3
This new feudalism is the biggest threat to our way of lives and our species. It is naive to not look at A.I. through an evolutionary lens. It s dangerous to let so few self interested parties control it.
3
Libertarian males are stuck in middle school and women represent Mom and teachers with authority who asked them to grow up. So naturally they do not want pesky women in the workplace, actually voting or in a democracy for that matter. Adult responsible males are not real popular with that set either. Monetized algorithms gamed to spreadsheets allow libertarian justifications. Thiel and Shkreli are the outcome as are the likes of Bannon (readership) and Gorka (bolstered hate). Not good for our Democracy. Add Sessions to this merry crew institutionalizing gender bias and racism, overt or covert.
7
I think the point of the article is to shed a brighter light on the privacies we sacrifice for the ease of doing business and do so without being offered a voice in the matter. I understand that some find it nice and convenient that a smartphone can guess what you're shopping for based on a google database that knows everything about you because it tracks everything you look at. But I prefer a few extra clicks if that means that no one but me remembers where I am what I'm doing and/or why,
And no, I have nothing to hide, I just prefer to know exactly who invades my privacy, when they do so and why. The why is the most important, it extends beyond amazon shopping all the way to political indoctrination, something that goes against the spirit of a free people.
And no, I have nothing to hide, I just prefer to know exactly who invades my privacy, when they do so and why. The why is the most important, it extends beyond amazon shopping all the way to political indoctrination, something that goes against the spirit of a free people.
3
People really don't care. They don't care about their privacy. They don't care about their dignity. They just want what they want as soon and as cheaply as possible. Nothing else matters to most people. Give people an addictive "app" or a few cents off some consumer gadget, and people will willfully give anything for it.
4
In response to Frank USA, there is an excellent documentary called "The True Cost" which provides an in depth report on the terrible working conditions in places like Cambodia and India.
The toll on these employees is immoral. The abuse of natural resources is despicable.
I'm old enough to remember when BIC introduced the disposable pen. My Mother asked why we would be throwing away a pen if we already had one.
Next, the disposable tobacco lighter.
Had we realized then what our consumerism would do to our planet, maybe we could have halted it's insipid growth.
But, the corporations knew full well what they were creating.
In my household we have roughly 100 pair of socks, none of which last more than a year. As I sorted them, I couldn't help but remember the suffering of the workers.
Maybe we should demand that sweat shops provide a fair living wage and structurally sound work places.
The toll on these employees is immoral. The abuse of natural resources is despicable.
I'm old enough to remember when BIC introduced the disposable pen. My Mother asked why we would be throwing away a pen if we already had one.
Next, the disposable tobacco lighter.
Had we realized then what our consumerism would do to our planet, maybe we could have halted it's insipid growth.
But, the corporations knew full well what they were creating.
In my household we have roughly 100 pair of socks, none of which last more than a year. As I sorted them, I couldn't help but remember the suffering of the workers.
Maybe we should demand that sweat shops provide a fair living wage and structurally sound work places.
1
It is hard for tech companies to diversify when when only women make up 10-15% of all engineering or comp sci graduates. When I went to engineering school 30 years ago we only had 2 women in our graduating class out of 40. Very few women even started the electrical engineering program. Those that did stuck with the program and graduated. Likewise Google should not hire unqualified or less qualified women over more qualified men to meet a quota of 50/50
However Damore expressed an opinion that was contrary to company policy and very upsetting to employees and he was terminated. Likewise if I had someone that was talented but contributing to a bad work environment I would terminate their employment as well. In the end google could be held liable for workplace harassment lawsuit based on gender or even race discrimation..
When I worked I did not have the luxury or time to write my opinions about politics or gender idenity on the company dime.
Finally when regardless of how many benefits a company gives you, companies are not your friends and it is just work for the rank and file engineers.
However Damore expressed an opinion that was contrary to company policy and very upsetting to employees and he was terminated. Likewise if I had someone that was talented but contributing to a bad work environment I would terminate their employment as well. In the end google could be held liable for workplace harassment lawsuit based on gender or even race discrimation..
When I worked I did not have the luxury or time to write my opinions about politics or gender idenity on the company dime.
Finally when regardless of how many benefits a company gives you, companies are not your friends and it is just work for the rank and file engineers.
as a teacher I prognosticated maybe 10-15 years ago that if we start to trust too much of our lives to computers, there will be a day of reckoning when it all goes down the toilet.
I resisted it for years - but now I'm there too - recently had a quick glance at an offered email of google's 'timeline' - showing a map of my movements for that day - where I'd travelled, how long I'd stayed at each location - I thought perfect surveillance - if I was paranoid.
Well - as they say - just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Greetings from Product number XYZ39480239771 - ether is good, hail to the SUN King, etc.
I resisted it for years - but now I'm there too - recently had a quick glance at an offered email of google's 'timeline' - showing a map of my movements for that day - where I'd travelled, how long I'd stayed at each location - I thought perfect surveillance - if I was paranoid.
Well - as they say - just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Greetings from Product number XYZ39480239771 - ether is good, hail to the SUN King, etc.
1
As usual it isn't only big brother that's the problem here. It's also the willingness of people to follow. And in this case non-compliance is quite simple. There's no SS or secret police to fear. Merely block ads. It's not hard to figure out how to do this. Just search for "block ads" plus your browser name such as "block ads chrome" or "block ads firefox" etc. Search using Google of course. In other words we can use Google as a tool to help reduce the influence of Google. Try it!
2
Where is love and relationship in our lives? Article is a general critique of power of tech on all of us. Beware. This is my short morning tech time (it has it's place), then back to the outdoors.
3
Google cares about one thing and one thing only, making money.
I happily do not use any Googe product. None.
I happily do not use any Googe product. None.
2
Clearly, Damore put Google in a lose-lose situation with his discrimination propaganda (a.k.a. "memo"). They erred on the side of diversity and gender equality... Is that the sci-fi dystopia depicted by the author? If so, I'll take the dystopia.
Also, Google is not a monopoly. Buy an iPhone if you don't like Android, but say goodbye to the freedom to customize your phone. Use Bing or Yahoo if you don't want Google to serve you search results, but good luck finding what you're looking for.
To carelessly call them a monopoly because of the degree of their success is inaccurate, lazy, and a bit silly.
Also, Google is not a monopoly. Buy an iPhone if you don't like Android, but say goodbye to the freedom to customize your phone. Use Bing or Yahoo if you don't want Google to serve you search results, but good luck finding what you're looking for.
To carelessly call them a monopoly because of the degree of their success is inaccurate, lazy, and a bit silly.
2
any company that dominates 90% of a market has a monopoly and Google dominates search (which means ad revenue) and data holdings on peoples actions.
Facebook is the close second in data, but not in search.
Facebook is the close second in data, but not in search.
1
Google is beyond even J. Edgar Hoover's wildest dreams—imagine having that much detailed private information about everyone. I can't believe they won't use it when push comes to shove over their profits. Perhaps it won't be bribes or blackmail, it might just be the unbelievable competitive edge of being able to mine their own data to best understand what everyone thinks, believes, loves, and fears; perhaps with a bit of algorithm-tweaking to push a mindset in a slightly different direction. Who needs lobbyists when you control all the search results?
3
Substitute the word capitalism for Google and television for the word Internet. Big corporations, the ad agencies and the credit card companies (who have been following our every move for years) have been making us fat and choiceless long before Google and Facebook. We are only now waking up to this fact? Have we all become so mindless? Maybe.
1
The underlying problem is that, despite protests to the contrary, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc are simply the latest ways to make big bucks. Goods and services are not the goal, but the means to make money. And the more monopoly asserts itself the poorer the goods and services become because quality ultimately costs money and reduces profit, and no longer is needed to gain market share. Search produces customers, not information. Bias produces customers, not enlightenment. Information flows to the corporation about its customers, not to the customer who needs to know what's happening.
2
This oped leans heavily on a fallacious line of reasoning. To wit,
Peter Thiel is an extreme libertarian unsympathetic to the idea of welfare and affirmative representation for women. Peter Thiel is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Google is a Silicon Valley company. Ergo, Google's corporate culture is suffused with Peter Thiel's values.
It is sufficient to note that Peter Thiel is not a Google investor, and has nothing to do with the company for the thrust of the argument to fail and the complaint to fall apart.
Peter Thiel is an extreme libertarian unsympathetic to the idea of welfare and affirmative representation for women. Peter Thiel is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Google is a Silicon Valley company. Ergo, Google's corporate culture is suffused with Peter Thiel's values.
It is sufficient to note that Peter Thiel is not a Google investor, and has nothing to do with the company for the thrust of the argument to fail and the complaint to fall apart.
6
Is Google a very large company, a social movement, a religion, or a habit? It has these characteristics. The post-Reagan mindset of the modern company supports covert abuse in the workplace. When was the last time you were threatened at work? Yesterday? The internet is a tool which reflects and magnifies social trends. Face reality: women still make less than men, and are more likely to be harassed by superiors. This is socially acceptable. Yet we treat Google, FB and the like with respect that was once given to religion. We believe it is true without any physical evidence. At the same time, religions magnifying sexism by supporting social injustice at the ballot box. Imagine if the faithful put the same energy into social justice and labor rights? The psychological nature of the internet, which bores into the central nervous system, creates a constant need to be "tuned on" so much so, that people have been killed crossing streets on cell phones. In the end, Google is a company, not a person (no matter what SCOTUS says), and is amoral. It needs guidance from society. A labor movement with laws that protect employees and unionization would be one way to help a company do what is best for all, if that is what society wants. One can only hope that society wakes from the post-Reagan, present day Trump nightmare to help large companies do the right thing.
2
To et-all, I am reminded of the union worker I know.
"It's not my job."
"You can't fire me."
"I'll work as slowly as I can."
I had a good insight to a union when I worked with union workers while in a non union office at the same company.
I swear, a man pulled a knife on a supervisor in the break room. When I walked in, they said "little lady, you'd best leave."
That was in 1970.
I told them to F_ off and so grew my career in logistics.
"It's not my job."
"You can't fire me."
"I'll work as slowly as I can."
I had a good insight to a union when I worked with union workers while in a non union office at the same company.
I swear, a man pulled a knife on a supervisor in the break room. When I walked in, they said "little lady, you'd best leave."
That was in 1970.
I told them to F_ off and so grew my career in logistics.
Way to show how bigoted you are. SOME union workers may play the game and work the system, not all do.
1
This is true but I think now, that we should also watch politicians doing the same thing - excluding the general population from their affluent world.
5
"Because tools like Google and Facebook have become so essential and because we have almost no choice in whether to use them, we need to consider the role they play in our lives."
No choice? Baloney! I use neither, and find nothing missing from my life. DuckDuckGo and Startpage serve admirably as alternative search engines without violating my privacy.
No choice? Baloney! I use neither, and find nothing missing from my life. DuckDuckGo and Startpage serve admirably as alternative search engines without violating my privacy.
8
You just answered my question. If Google, Bing, etc. are so invasive/pervasive, and with hidden agendas, then why doesn't a company come up with an effective search engine that promises not to use/re-use personal information?
Agreed. Nothing that Google provides is essential. The closest thing to essential google provides is a net search engine, but there are alternatives to even that. The real key to limiting the power of the encroaching tech companies' rapacious appetite for data is education.
Easy answer, but the harder part is designing an education experience to the uneducated. That means the education has to focus on simple, straightforward steps that don't result in more confusion and data overload. It has to be simple and straight forward, and the receiver of the information has to understand that failure to comply will result in loss of privacy.
I cannot believe the amount of data mining that people tacitly agree to for the sake of a little convenience. That means, turn off your cookies. Get used to logging in every time you go to your favorite sites. It isn't that difficult to spend five seconds typing in your user ID and password.
That means, no (non-privacy enhancing) add-ons to your browser. I lose respect for my fellow employees whenever I have to sit at their computer and see the number of add-ons they've added to their browsers. What they've done is traded their privacy for a tiny amount of convenience.
The main point is that online convenience is not free, it costs you your privacy.
Easy answer, but the harder part is designing an education experience to the uneducated. That means the education has to focus on simple, straightforward steps that don't result in more confusion and data overload. It has to be simple and straight forward, and the receiver of the information has to understand that failure to comply will result in loss of privacy.
I cannot believe the amount of data mining that people tacitly agree to for the sake of a little convenience. That means, turn off your cookies. Get used to logging in every time you go to your favorite sites. It isn't that difficult to spend five seconds typing in your user ID and password.
That means, no (non-privacy enhancing) add-ons to your browser. I lose respect for my fellow employees whenever I have to sit at their computer and see the number of add-ons they've added to their browsers. What they've done is traded their privacy for a tiny amount of convenience.
The main point is that online convenience is not free, it costs you your privacy.
@ron Cohen Startpage has a documented virus. I would not recommend it
Children now waste several hours everyday playing video games,viewing videos, sending irrelevant messages, and posting nonsense.
Schools encourage it by requiring computers for school and even add to the ways to waste time by pretending to use computers to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic.
We have sabotaged our children's education.
Schools encourage it by requiring computers for school and even add to the ways to waste time by pretending to use computers to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic.
We have sabotaged our children's education.
13
"We have sabotaged our children's education"
So said every generation since Socrates.
So said every generation since Socrates.
There exists one glaring exception the the providing of "information" and thus forming values based on the incentives of the mega message purveyors. It is, of course, Wikipedia.
This conglomerate of information which Jimmy Wales, the founder, could have monetized with a single ad per article that could have made him among the world's riches men, but he chose not to. It is the world's singular preserve of fact, of not only consensus but dialogue, without the domination of a single point of view, no matter how powerful or popular.
Facebook and Tweeter facilitate the hive mind, an imperative that humans share with almost all organisms. We need to belong, and social media facilitates this at the sacrifice of messy reality.
Wikipedia provides this fact based understanding of the world, but you still have to dig; and reality is often not in keeping with myth of all forms that keep us together and secure in our ideological communities.
This conglomerate of information which Jimmy Wales, the founder, could have monetized with a single ad per article that could have made him among the world's riches men, but he chose not to. It is the world's singular preserve of fact, of not only consensus but dialogue, without the domination of a single point of view, no matter how powerful or popular.
Facebook and Tweeter facilitate the hive mind, an imperative that humans share with almost all organisms. We need to belong, and social media facilitates this at the sacrifice of messy reality.
Wikipedia provides this fact based understanding of the world, but you still have to dig; and reality is often not in keeping with myth of all forms that keep us together and secure in our ideological communities.
12
I was delighted to see Jonathan Taplin's article on the front of (at least the online) New York Times. I was slightly disappointed in the article itself because i am in the middle of his book* where his views and narrative are meticulous, and the thrust of his argument clear in a way I think he was unable to quite put together here (and perhaps as someone else noted because he sidestepped into the current Google-firing-imbroglio). His book is unbelievably important (while measured) and certainly the most human, historic and cogent argument I have for the need to redress these clearly monopolistic practices and to push back against the narrow, libertarian mind set and where it is taking us. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, Neal Postman warned us that we are "Amusing Ourselves to Death,"' and Jonathan Taplin points out appropriately that monopolies aren't somehow the stepchildren of the industrial revolution. All three suggest a failure to pay heed fundamentally threatens our democracy.
*“Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
*“Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
6
This timely column will be criticized because it implicitly violates the first principle of slavish high tech worship: If Silicon Valley is regulated in any way, the US economy will shrivel up and die.
5
So Google "had to fire the engineer"??
So in other words after "nose-counting", the only allowable explanation for "lack of women" is sexism.
Any other explanation is banned.
And if you are foolish enough to disagree, particularly in public, you're gone.
However it is the "oppression of women" that we have to worry about.
I'd say there is a problem here, but it is not the one Mr. Taplin is writing about.
So in other words after "nose-counting", the only allowable explanation for "lack of women" is sexism.
Any other explanation is banned.
And if you are foolish enough to disagree, particularly in public, you're gone.
However it is the "oppression of women" that we have to worry about.
I'd say there is a problem here, but it is not the one Mr. Taplin is writing about.
5
I believe Google was stupid and wrong to fire this guy, but are you really so naive as to think a corporation won't get rid of you (somehow, anyhow) if you become inconvenient or a source of potential legal risk, regardless of the reason why?
Ha.
Ha.
Reading this article I doubt that he author bothered to read the 10 page manifesto. It seems that many are rushing in from all sides with uninformed opinions.
2
We are a democracy, and a supposedly educated citizenry that lives
for its’ best interest. Turn it off. Turn it all off. I’ve never used Facebook,
minimize my Amazon use, and started with Opera a long time ago. And I
Don’t Use one of those so called smart phones.
for its’ best interest. Turn it off. Turn it all off. I’ve never used Facebook,
minimize my Amazon use, and started with Opera a long time ago. And I
Don’t Use one of those so called smart phones.
2
I am a complete non-techie. But I use Duck Duck Go, a non-tracking search engine, exclusively. Recently I got a new computer and I neglected for about 10 days to select Duck Duck Go as the default search engine. It was truly creepy to have ads for products I had forgotten I looked at for the preceding week get plastered in margins of every new search I initiated. I cannot imagine why people put up with this, when the solution is right at your fingertips. I can't speak for Facebook-I'm a non-user. But for searching, visit Duck Duck Go folks.
6
I fail to see how Google affects me as an individual.
I search on Google every day yet I pay no attention to any ads that may appear.
So, explain to me again, how is Google (or Amazon, etc.) affecting my life?
I search on Google every day yet I pay no attention to any ads that may appear.
So, explain to me again, how is Google (or Amazon, etc.) affecting my life?
2
By keeping every keystroke you enter for decades, that's how.
By selling data on your your reading choices, queries, porn viewing, and everything else you don on Google or Chrome to the highest bidder.
And by rolling over for government intrusion in to your data, both China AND the US!
NOW do you see?
By selling data on your your reading choices, queries, porn viewing, and everything else you don on Google or Chrome to the highest bidder.
And by rolling over for government intrusion in to your data, both China AND the US!
NOW do you see?
2
I would like the New York Times to publish a diversity audit of its organization. As much as I value its journalism (enough to pay for a subscription) I would like to know if I am represented by the NYT.
I want to know how many women and minorities work at the New York Times. How many are journalists, how many make editorial decisions etc.
If we are going to keep judging the tech world them please show us your stats.
I want to know how many women and minorities work at the New York Times. How many are journalists, how many make editorial decisions etc.
If we are going to keep judging the tech world them please show us your stats.
8
Frederick wrote: "I would like the New York Times to publish a diversity audit of its organization."
Does this help?
Preaching the Gospel of Diversity, but Not Following It
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/public-editor/new-york-times-diversit...
Does this help?
Preaching the Gospel of Diversity, but Not Following It
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/public-editor/new-york-times-diversit...
This author knows nothing about Google's actual culture. It is not at all libertarian. It is incredibly liberal and egalitarian. This is all in his imagination.
Google does not have a monopoly at all - anyone can build a search engine and compete (Microsoft already has). It is difficult tell if this author is upset with the author of the memo or the way Google handled it or the alt-right minority at Google who is leaking postings to breitbart. Perhaps the author is too confused to know either - he just feels superior and victimized by someone - God knows who.
Google does not have a monopoly at all - anyone can build a search engine and compete (Microsoft already has). It is difficult tell if this author is upset with the author of the memo or the way Google handled it or the alt-right minority at Google who is leaking postings to breitbart. Perhaps the author is too confused to know either - he just feels superior and victimized by someone - God knows who.
3
Then why at Google do female executives not have the same number of assistants as males? Etc., etc., etc. Google is trying, I will give them that. But they have the same structural sexism as so many other places and are slow to fix it (gender pay gap [that it exists at all is inexcusable; that it isn't instantly fixed shows you the sexism], no females at the top, etc., etc.
Absolutely great article. The problem with the slogan, "Don't be evil," is that it is too hard to do a negative mantra. "What you resist, persists." And yes if it is free then the product is you, is true. Thanks! I will read your book.
If the police may not enter my house without a warrant, why indeed can Google do virtually the same thing with impunity. It all comes down to privacy, and right now it is missing in action.
7
Because you clicked YES in the checkbox and so agreed to their terms of service.
Get a clue.
Get a clue.
2
Steve Jobs pressed us to Think Different. Google, not so much.
2
Corporations exist for only one reason - the maximum extraction of money from the public. Everything else takes a back seat and they are all fundamentally the same. Another dime in an auto company CEO's bonus will always be far more important than a safety improvement that would save lives.
These are the entities that run the show. Any wonder things are as fouled up as they are?
These are the entities that run the show. Any wonder things are as fouled up as they are?
5
I'm sure Google and Amazon know what's better for me than I do. I mean, they have algorithms. And those are never wrong. Abandon all hope to Big Data.
1
Wait...market forces won't solve this? Gads...
The idea that regulation for the greater good will always fail, will lead us down this dystopian path. That the "state" is seen as inevitably incompetent and malevolent is moving us to a high-tech Wild West.
The idea that regulation for the greater good will always fail, will lead us down this dystopian path. That the "state" is seen as inevitably incompetent and malevolent is moving us to a high-tech Wild West.
1
In fact, Google is in my view a public utility and it ought to be expropriated. Their power play over this memo (and that IS what it is, a power play to control and pacify their workers while pandering to the lawyered up p.c. crowd) indicates they are way over the line. It is time to reign them in.
However, where this Times piece focuses on the gender issue it loses seriousness. Who cares if boys like doing this tech stuff more than girls? I don't. Any more than I care that my doc is an Asia woman. I do not care. And don't kid yourself for a minute that the ladies of Google who went home in protest really are feeling "hurt" or "discriminated against," or "unsafe" or any of that nonsense. They are engaged in a power play of their own. THEY are the aggressors, not the aggressed against. Google is on their side to exactly the extent they are on everyone's side - so they can get more than they give, period. Just as all the misnamed "snowflakes" on campuses are the aggressors not the aggressed against, the campuses where this totalitarian stew has been brewing for too long and has now been sent out into the world. They are power hungry ego-inflated bullies, just as the Google execs are. They all need to be reigned in.
However, where this Times piece focuses on the gender issue it loses seriousness. Who cares if boys like doing this tech stuff more than girls? I don't. Any more than I care that my doc is an Asia woman. I do not care. And don't kid yourself for a minute that the ladies of Google who went home in protest really are feeling "hurt" or "discriminated against," or "unsafe" or any of that nonsense. They are engaged in a power play of their own. THEY are the aggressors, not the aggressed against. Google is on their side to exactly the extent they are on everyone's side - so they can get more than they give, period. Just as all the misnamed "snowflakes" on campuses are the aggressors not the aggressed against, the campuses where this totalitarian stew has been brewing for too long and has now been sent out into the world. They are power hungry ego-inflated bullies, just as the Google execs are. They all need to be reigned in.
4
Does google have any responsiblity to fire the individuals who are planning to blacklist their colleagues ? Blacklisting is about as unamerican as you can get , even worse than censorship.
4
Thieves and the very wealthy, especially the "libertarian" wealthy, tend to share an inappropriate sense of entitlement. Neither they nor the government we have saddled ourselves with have the slightest concern for the privacy of anyone who can't afford to keep a phalanx of lawyers on retainer.
7
Thank you for this well-articulated critique of Silicon Valley. Someone on this board asked me if I would be happy if it were wiped out by North Korea's nukes. No, that wouldn't make me happy. Recognizing the Valley as just a valid a threat to our democracy as North Korea - THAT would make me happy.
6
Mr. Taplin has a couple of misconceptions. First, Gamergate was a consumer revolt against a video game review press that had a too-cozy relationship with game developers (including, in one memorable example, one reviewer sleeping with a developer and then giving that developer's game a good review). Gamers were angry at having a hack press covering their hobby, in the same way that moviegoers would feel betrayed if reviewers lied about the films of their friends to help them make box office. Unfortunately, Gamergate included a number of juveniles who apparently couldn't express protest without calling someone a four letter word. That's the part of the nature of the internet: righteous causes tend to bring a ragged mob in their wake.
Second, the Google memo did not say that women are unfit for the tech industry. What it said was that there is a lot of scientific evidence (and it included links to the sources) that women and men have somewhat different career preferences, *on average*. Many women prefer careers that involve people more than things. Many men prefer careers that involve things more than people. That's all you need to explain the so-called "gender gap" in the tech industry, and for that matter the gender gaps in nursing, brick laying, pediatrics, underwater welding, and social work. I can't help but notice that it's only the gaps that favor men that seem to cause so much social concern.
Second, the Google memo did not say that women are unfit for the tech industry. What it said was that there is a lot of scientific evidence (and it included links to the sources) that women and men have somewhat different career preferences, *on average*. Many women prefer careers that involve people more than things. Many men prefer careers that involve things more than people. That's all you need to explain the so-called "gender gap" in the tech industry, and for that matter the gender gaps in nursing, brick laying, pediatrics, underwater welding, and social work. I can't help but notice that it's only the gaps that favor men that seem to cause so much social concern.
5
That's only "all you need to explain the so-called "gender gap"" IF AND ONLY IF:
1. you're not a scientist and are too insecure to be interested in science (as science has a reputation for destroying century-old prejudices ...)
2. and as a consequence you prefer to deny the RELEVANT science here, which are studies investigating the biology of women and men (as after all, Damore attributed these differences to "biology"), and studies investigating how "socializing" determines boys' and girls' preferences later in life for one or the other kind of profession.
In other words, it's only all you need to know when you prefer to stick your head in the sand rather than having the kind of "pioneering spirit" certain men adore to imagine at work in their own genes ... ;-)
1. you're not a scientist and are too insecure to be interested in science (as science has a reputation for destroying century-old prejudices ...)
2. and as a consequence you prefer to deny the RELEVANT science here, which are studies investigating the biology of women and men (as after all, Damore attributed these differences to "biology"), and studies investigating how "socializing" determines boys' and girls' preferences later in life for one or the other kind of profession.
In other words, it's only all you need to know when you prefer to stick your head in the sand rather than having the kind of "pioneering spirit" certain men adore to imagine at work in their own genes ... ;-)
1
If Zuckerberg didn't like his depiction in The Social Network, why did he reportedly take groups of staff to see it?
2
Yet another article pointing out that only 17% of Google's tech jobs are held by women, but ignoring that only 18% of tech undergraduate degrees go to women in the first place. Google isn't the problem when it comes to women in tech, and one of the takeaways from the memo incident should be that they're pushing to make it better. All tech companies I've worked for are actively trying to hire more women, and it is seriously hard due to their rarity.
It's very convenient to build hate against the top dog, but let's not forget that Google achieved their position on merit - people preferred their search engine. They're funded on targeted advertising, but you also don't have to use their products (like Gmail) that passively invade your privacy. Any search engine by nature collects information on your active searches. Don't like it? Don't use such a tool. Scapegoating Google for societal passiveness and for unscrupulous males seems a facile response.
Want to do something about gender diversity in tech? About choice and influence? If you're a woman, go get a tech degree. If you're a conscientious man, go get a tech degree. If you have daughters, encourage them to go into tech. Support diversity efforts at schools. Teach your sons. Quit Google, Facebook, or Amazon if necessary. Work at Google. Vote for issues like net neutrality. Don't just resent tech giants for not fixing all our diversity ills, or for gaining control, when we've long failed to show any interest in participating.
It's very convenient to build hate against the top dog, but let's not forget that Google achieved their position on merit - people preferred their search engine. They're funded on targeted advertising, but you also don't have to use their products (like Gmail) that passively invade your privacy. Any search engine by nature collects information on your active searches. Don't like it? Don't use such a tool. Scapegoating Google for societal passiveness and for unscrupulous males seems a facile response.
Want to do something about gender diversity in tech? About choice and influence? If you're a woman, go get a tech degree. If you're a conscientious man, go get a tech degree. If you have daughters, encourage them to go into tech. Support diversity efforts at schools. Teach your sons. Quit Google, Facebook, or Amazon if necessary. Work at Google. Vote for issues like net neutrality. Don't just resent tech giants for not fixing all our diversity ills, or for gaining control, when we've long failed to show any interest in participating.
96
Yes, I agree. All good points! But the article's focus on the de jour hot button issue at Google is a distraction from the headline "Google Doesn’t Want What’s Best for Us".
You missed an essential part of the solution: teach men not to be sexist pigs.
2
The average consumer isn't as powerless to punish these companies, but we are far too lazy and complacent. How to punish Google:
1. Search: it's very easy to avoid Android handsets and switch all your search engines to duduckgo or Bing, neither of which rely on data collection for their main business. Switch your PC browser settings and your iPhone Safari settings.
2. Download and use ad-blockers when surfing the web. These programs drive a stake through Google's heart! You can surf all over without seeing another intrusive ad on every page you visit.
3. Gmail? Plenty of alternatives, enough said.
4. Youtube? Switch to Vimeo
5. Maps? Bing maps will do, TomTom, HERE
It's very easy to drive the message home but most people wouldn't even spend 10 minutes implementing some of the changes described above. That makes us complicit and takes away from any moral argument we want to make.
1. Search: it's very easy to avoid Android handsets and switch all your search engines to duduckgo or Bing, neither of which rely on data collection for their main business. Switch your PC browser settings and your iPhone Safari settings.
2. Download and use ad-blockers when surfing the web. These programs drive a stake through Google's heart! You can surf all over without seeing another intrusive ad on every page you visit.
3. Gmail? Plenty of alternatives, enough said.
4. Youtube? Switch to Vimeo
5. Maps? Bing maps will do, TomTom, HERE
It's very easy to drive the message home but most people wouldn't even spend 10 minutes implementing some of the changes described above. That makes us complicit and takes away from any moral argument we want to make.
9
"Google Doesn’t Want What’s Best for Us"
Shouldn't that be a question?
By making it a statement, the author betrays his Googlephobia (not a bad thing) and is forced to march a battalion of powerful arguments onto the battlefield. What he musters is a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade full of bloated cartoon icons.
Too bad because the author raises serious issues about Google, Amazon and Facebook: the Master of the Universe/Frat Boy culture, their monopoly and monetization of human bandwidth, and their astonishingly shallow humanity.
I applaud Google for firing a disgruntled software engineer who thinks his privilege extends past his ignorance. But I don't like being a commodity that's tracked, quantified, analyzed, and sold to other voracious companies eager for my attention, money and affection. Amazon is even more sinister and unapologetic about the data it amasses and how it's used. With Alexa, they're right there in your home, 24/7. No federal wiretap warrant necessary.
There's no comfort knowing Amazon is the Federal Government's prime contractor for storing data in the cloud.
Does Zuckerberg ever think about when someone else takes over Facebook who doesn't share his values and ideals, like Steve Bannon? Or Peter Thiel, who, for a German, is remarkably glib about his Ubermensch worldview. If Cambridge Analytica had access to Facebook's aggregated data, just imagine.
As we all get poorer, Big Data can pick out the few with money worth targeting.
Shouldn't that be a question?
By making it a statement, the author betrays his Googlephobia (not a bad thing) and is forced to march a battalion of powerful arguments onto the battlefield. What he musters is a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade full of bloated cartoon icons.
Too bad because the author raises serious issues about Google, Amazon and Facebook: the Master of the Universe/Frat Boy culture, their monopoly and monetization of human bandwidth, and their astonishingly shallow humanity.
I applaud Google for firing a disgruntled software engineer who thinks his privilege extends past his ignorance. But I don't like being a commodity that's tracked, quantified, analyzed, and sold to other voracious companies eager for my attention, money and affection. Amazon is even more sinister and unapologetic about the data it amasses and how it's used. With Alexa, they're right there in your home, 24/7. No federal wiretap warrant necessary.
There's no comfort knowing Amazon is the Federal Government's prime contractor for storing data in the cloud.
Does Zuckerberg ever think about when someone else takes over Facebook who doesn't share his values and ideals, like Steve Bannon? Or Peter Thiel, who, for a German, is remarkably glib about his Ubermensch worldview. If Cambridge Analytica had access to Facebook's aggregated data, just imagine.
As we all get poorer, Big Data can pick out the few with money worth targeting.
2
James Damore gets fired and Peter Thiel gets to speak at the GOP National Convention.
Why the difference?
Main reason is that Thiel is quite rich. He also doesn't work "for" anybody, so he can't be fired.
Also, the GOP used Thiel for his gayness, to demonstrate how "tolerant" the GOP is. Thiel is a very smart guy so I assume he understood this, but he wanted his views to be heard so much that he put aside the fact that the extreme right (religious) wing of the party views his gayness as an anathema.
In the end, Damore's firing came down to this: Google is a business. It has female employees (though perhaps not enough) and female customers. Even though Damore's memo included analysis of actual research and was measured in tone, some of its conclusions and statements could simply not be tolerated as a business matter because they offended a key segment of the employee base and female customers. So he had to go, even though firing him may have violated the National Labor Relations Act. Some conservative think tank or legal foundation will fund his defense, so we'll find out.
Personally, while I don't agree with what Damore wrote, as a nation we need to stop demanding that every person who responsibly disagrees with us be fired, pilloried, repudiated and ruined. It is un-American. I don't want thought police on either side of the spectrum. And it is certainly wrong to ruin a person's life because "the Twitterverse" demands it be done.
Why the difference?
Main reason is that Thiel is quite rich. He also doesn't work "for" anybody, so he can't be fired.
Also, the GOP used Thiel for his gayness, to demonstrate how "tolerant" the GOP is. Thiel is a very smart guy so I assume he understood this, but he wanted his views to be heard so much that he put aside the fact that the extreme right (religious) wing of the party views his gayness as an anathema.
In the end, Damore's firing came down to this: Google is a business. It has female employees (though perhaps not enough) and female customers. Even though Damore's memo included analysis of actual research and was measured in tone, some of its conclusions and statements could simply not be tolerated as a business matter because they offended a key segment of the employee base and female customers. So he had to go, even though firing him may have violated the National Labor Relations Act. Some conservative think tank or legal foundation will fund his defense, so we'll find out.
Personally, while I don't agree with what Damore wrote, as a nation we need to stop demanding that every person who responsibly disagrees with us be fired, pilloried, repudiated and ruined. It is un-American. I don't want thought police on either side of the spectrum. And it is certainly wrong to ruin a person's life because "the Twitterverse" demands it be done.
5
He was an at-will employee so he hasn't a leg to stand on, and you can thank the GOP and their corporate minions for that one.
He was a bigot who didn't understand his own bigotry: calling all women neurotic and unable to handle stress is BIGOTRY, right? And he wrote performance reviews for female employees with that point of view, OK?
If he'd said SOME women, no problem. He said ALL women, and that is ignorant bigotry. Poor fool thinks he's a social scientist: he's way over his head and can't see his own prejudices.
He can believe what he believes and say what he wants, but life will not protect him from the consequences of his actions. His ignorant rant created a hostile work environment for a significant part of Google's workforce: they should not have fired him because that's fascist restraint on speech, but the fact that he got pilloried is neither surprising nor wrong.
He was a bigot who didn't understand his own bigotry: calling all women neurotic and unable to handle stress is BIGOTRY, right? And he wrote performance reviews for female employees with that point of view, OK?
If he'd said SOME women, no problem. He said ALL women, and that is ignorant bigotry. Poor fool thinks he's a social scientist: he's way over his head and can't see his own prejudices.
He can believe what he believes and say what he wants, but life will not protect him from the consequences of his actions. His ignorant rant created a hostile work environment for a significant part of Google's workforce: they should not have fired him because that's fascist restraint on speech, but the fact that he got pilloried is neither surprising nor wrong.
It is a cult. What defines it is a steadfast, messianic belief in it's righteousness AND in the proselytizing of societal change it's masters desire. Controlling information, in possession of the personal details of billions of lives, perpetuated by a compliant and corrupt world cabal of globalist eugenicists, and enjoying a practically tax-free corporate existence, it is a cult with government support in the form of willful ignorance. Except where political contributions are concerned. The elected classes pay attention to that. Lately you've seen "news" articles about employees willingly having chips inserted into their bodies, just for convenience, mind you! Uh-huh. In the hopes of getting printed, we cannot use the terminology we'd prefer to describe these...misguided tools. Sooner than we all might think WE become the robots - never mind the manufactured kind - as they will be freer beings than we.
3
I'd agree with nearly all that is written in this article except for the notion that we have no choice but to use google and Facebook as they are essential. I admit that I use google as my search engine as it appears to do the job well; maybe I need to seek out an alternative.As for Facebook though; no way! Just why would any form of social media be considered "essential "? Yes, I probably miss out on lots of vacation pics and updates of people's lives but I figure if they really want me to know about it they know how to reach me.
The reference towards the end of the article to the notion that we'll end up with a few thousand Americans with robot driven cars who live to 150 while the rest of us live nasty brutish lives and die at 60 really struck though. Given our ever increasing income inequality, it feels like we're well on our way to such a society. I just don't understand why we aren't fighting back.
The reference towards the end of the article to the notion that we'll end up with a few thousand Americans with robot driven cars who live to 150 while the rest of us live nasty brutish lives and die at 60 really struck though. Given our ever increasing income inequality, it feels like we're well on our way to such a society. I just don't understand why we aren't fighting back.
3
I find it fascinating that anyone could ever have thought that these companies were in any way intentionally beneficial to the larger society as opposed to throwing off a few incidental benefits we might find useful. Why anyone thinks multinational corporations are somehow more benevolent than their elected government is patently silly.
2
I worked at Google for 13 years and portrayal of the company is completely inaccurate. The brogrammer is a minority in Google. I read this opinion piece and the comments and realize how poorly understood Google is from by the outside. I've worked in tech in a lot of industries over the years. Google was probably the only place where equality efforts didn't just feel like lip service.
6
Why is Google expected to do what is best for "us". Google is not a technology company, it is an advertising agency that uses a set of sophisticated data collection tools to collect information on its users for the benefit of it's own customers (HINT: not you). Every user has a responsibility to understand the products they use. The same people who would never buy a box of cereal without reading the label, would not hesitate to put their most private thoughts into their phone or computer. Before you give anymore information to these data collection services, here are a couple of suggestions:
If you do not want to be part of the Google world use a non tracking search engine - see duckduckgo.com!
If you want to use a Google account remember Google does gives you some control over how much you share - check the preferences under My Account. Use a modern browsers - stay away from anything related to Internet Explorer - Firefox or Chrome will work. BUT if Google search freaks you out then keep off Chrome. Clear your browser cookies and get an extension that protects your online privacy. Check with the Electronic Freedom Frontier, they have tools you can use to help protect your privacy. Finally, remember Google Search is a company/product not a human rights organization. You MUST take time to understand how and why it works the way it does. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
If you do not want to be part of the Google world use a non tracking search engine - see duckduckgo.com!
If you want to use a Google account remember Google does gives you some control over how much you share - check the preferences under My Account. Use a modern browsers - stay away from anything related to Internet Explorer - Firefox or Chrome will work. BUT if Google search freaks you out then keep off Chrome. Clear your browser cookies and get an extension that protects your online privacy. Check with the Electronic Freedom Frontier, they have tools you can use to help protect your privacy. Finally, remember Google Search is a company/product not a human rights organization. You MUST take time to understand how and why it works the way it does. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
2
When will Google be broken up, like John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil of New Jersey was broken up?
4
Monopolies are not illegal. Monopolies only run foul of the law if they use their power to restrict competition or innovation. Technology in general hates choice it loves ubiquity. Microsoft Windows enforced "PC standards" that allowed different parts of the PC market to grow exponentially. For example, it allowed printer manufacturers to have a single roadmap on how to connect to every PC in the world and thus all you had to know was which printer worked on Windows. That Windows ubiquity essentially created the global PC market, even though Microsoft always tilted the scales to favor itself in order to "protect" the desktop and in many cases created "new" product categories that were cheaper but not the most innovative out there. Software like Office gave use convenience with bloat, viruses, insecurity and less innovation.
My daughter works at google, but not in Mountain View. She's happy, it doesn't seem to be bro culture. And so far google's shopping is lame and its advertising is aimed at stuff one has already bought. Not too alarmed at the all powerful google yet. Nice that it doesn't have powers of prison, military force or taxation, so my worries are reserved for the incompetent government instead. A government that should be regulating capitalism.
3
The ptoblem with artificially imposing percentage of female employees or underrepresented minotities means someone wins and someone loses, not based on their abilities. That is UnAmerican. I worked hard to get where I am today, there were multi generational sacrifices made to help with my success only to be Unrewarded to appease quotas.
1
It is certainly possible to not have a Facebook account. If you don't believe me just go to your account settings and click delete. It's also possible to live without Google although incrementally harder given the prevalence of Android.
1
Surely there is a choice? Switch to DuckDuckGo. That engine does not track you.
2
What happened to their motto "Don't be evil"?
2
The NYT is a big media outlet that prints a lot of (mostly good) stuff every day, but this screed is one of the worst I've seen lately. I don't own stock in any of the companies the author mentions, I'm not on Facebook, and I'm not particularly a fan of Google or Peter Thiel or any of the other straw men brought forth here.
Google, Facebook, and Amazon have not subverted democracy or the free press (if it wasn't for Amazon, the Washington Post would have gone out of business some time ago). Nor do they have an obligation to do any of the things the author mentions or implies they should do. These are simply very successful businesses. The opinions of Peter Thiel didn't elect Trump. Facebook didn't originate fake news. The Google employee's memo does not constitute a war on women or anything like it (I write this as the proud father of a wonderful daughter).
American society is undergoing fairly radical change, much (though not all) of it for the worse. The fact that Google receives 90% of online search advertising has nothing to do with that fact. Broaden your outlook in your search for villains, author. Focusing the blame on Silicon Valley is an almost childishly narrow viewpoint.
Google, Facebook, and Amazon have not subverted democracy or the free press (if it wasn't for Amazon, the Washington Post would have gone out of business some time ago). Nor do they have an obligation to do any of the things the author mentions or implies they should do. These are simply very successful businesses. The opinions of Peter Thiel didn't elect Trump. Facebook didn't originate fake news. The Google employee's memo does not constitute a war on women or anything like it (I write this as the proud father of a wonderful daughter).
American society is undergoing fairly radical change, much (though not all) of it for the worse. The fact that Google receives 90% of online search advertising has nothing to do with that fact. Broaden your outlook in your search for villains, author. Focusing the blame on Silicon Valley is an almost childishly narrow viewpoint.
1
"Americans’ romantic view of the tech industry is at odds with reality."
Well duh.
The goal of all personal technology is to make people stupider, lazier and more ignorant and, therefore, easier to manipulate.
It's not a accident that all tech companies are staunch allies of Chairman Xi, the dictator who rules China as the head of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
Well duh.
The goal of all personal technology is to make people stupider, lazier and more ignorant and, therefore, easier to manipulate.
It's not a accident that all tech companies are staunch allies of Chairman Xi, the dictator who rules China as the head of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
2
This whole focus on "the corporation's" role in society underlines something quite obvious: capitalism has become religion. Instead of the omnipotent/omnipresent father in the sky, we now have corporations who essentially establish the rules for everyone to live by and provide us the "facts" we should believe in. The computer screens and phones are its altars. The masses are it's parishioners. The brogrammer priests lead the congregation: "Let us PREY."
41
It's important to remember every time you use google or any other company you are choosing to. There is only one entity that forces interaction and that is the government. Capitalism is true democracy, you vote everyday with your dollars. As consumers we have complete control over companies. They have to constantly bend to our whims or they die. So quit playing powerless victim in need of government to come help.
I seen you put an extra couple of dollars in the collection basket during the "supply & demand" sermon today!
1
Google, tech companies in general, computers, artificial intelligence, advances in biological science, projected human future in general and effect on society?
Just taking science first, computers, technology, vast and increasing interest in the human brain, neuroscience and biology in general, it appears the human future is a pure focus on technology and operation of the human brain--understanding and development of the human brain, and animal intelligence period (corvids, octopi, dolphins...). In other words, taking the universalist approach, the universal trend in human societies today transcending human divisions of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, politics and economics, etc. we find a primary focus on technology and the human brain--these two fields seem to be operating across all societies, transcending cultures.
What this means is technology will continue to develop and that all our best political aspirations of people transcending external and ideological differences (race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc.) will result in an internal focus on pure brain development, zeroing in on just finding the best route genetically and environmentally to an optimal brain no matter origin of original parts of such, which means the overarching project is just best brainpower operating in tandem with best technological development.
Symphony of brains (musicians) with most advanced technology (instruments) with AI (electronic musicians/instruments). Brain/Machine.
Just taking science first, computers, technology, vast and increasing interest in the human brain, neuroscience and biology in general, it appears the human future is a pure focus on technology and operation of the human brain--understanding and development of the human brain, and animal intelligence period (corvids, octopi, dolphins...). In other words, taking the universalist approach, the universal trend in human societies today transcending human divisions of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, politics and economics, etc. we find a primary focus on technology and the human brain--these two fields seem to be operating across all societies, transcending cultures.
What this means is technology will continue to develop and that all our best political aspirations of people transcending external and ideological differences (race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc.) will result in an internal focus on pure brain development, zeroing in on just finding the best route genetically and environmentally to an optimal brain no matter origin of original parts of such, which means the overarching project is just best brainpower operating in tandem with best technological development.
Symphony of brains (musicians) with most advanced technology (instruments) with AI (electronic musicians/instruments). Brain/Machine.
We pay Google. We pay indirectly when buying services and products shown specifically to us during searches. This is stealthy capitalism where Google and others make money on members of public while avoiding paying taxes on profits. Perhaps they can call Ireland or other friendly tax jurisdiction when their building catches fire.
Google, Facebook, Amazon and others know exactly how much revenue they derive from me. They should send me a statement. They actually know how much they earn from women customers. Even if it may be less than 17%, to compare to the percentage of women employees, they most likely cannot be profitable without them.
Google, Facebook, Amazon and others know exactly how much revenue they derive from me. They should send me a statement. They actually know how much they earn from women customers. Even if it may be less than 17%, to compare to the percentage of women employees, they most likely cannot be profitable without them.
4
Good article. Thank you. However, people were always misinformed, and royal courts employed gossips and scolds to work the market places and whisper the messages of the day.
1
Like another reviewer, I find this article really confused. It is titled "Google Doesn’t Want What’s Best for Us", but it does not really say what it is that Google doesn't want or what's best for us. Google fired the software engineer for perpetuating gender stereotypes. Does it mean that what's best for us is if that engineer stayed? That cannot be it: there are many people on both sides of defending him, so it can't be universally good for us.
It notes that in 2014 Google stated that 14% of its technical workforce was female. Now Google publishes these numbers on its site (https://www.google.com/diversity/), and today this number for their tech staff is 20%. This shows a positive upward trajectory. Besides, firing James Damore was also done towards maintaining tolerant work environment. If the point was that it is Googlers themselves who perpetuate the brogrammer culture, despite what the company's leadership wants, then the title of the article is really misleading and should have been changed.
The article further states "we’ve given Google enormous control over our lives and the lives of our children", and "By giving networks like Google and Facebook control of the present, we cede our freedom to choose our future". These are pretty lofty claims, but again the article never explains what this control is and how we gave it to Google or Facebook.
If there is a point that the article wanted to make, it probably needed better arguments.
It notes that in 2014 Google stated that 14% of its technical workforce was female. Now Google publishes these numbers on its site (https://www.google.com/diversity/), and today this number for their tech staff is 20%. This shows a positive upward trajectory. Besides, firing James Damore was also done towards maintaining tolerant work environment. If the point was that it is Googlers themselves who perpetuate the brogrammer culture, despite what the company's leadership wants, then the title of the article is really misleading and should have been changed.
The article further states "we’ve given Google enormous control over our lives and the lives of our children", and "By giving networks like Google and Facebook control of the present, we cede our freedom to choose our future". These are pretty lofty claims, but again the article never explains what this control is and how we gave it to Google or Facebook.
If there is a point that the article wanted to make, it probably needed better arguments.
7
“In Thiel’s techno-utopia, a few thousand Americans might own robot-driven cars and live to 150, while millions of others lose their jobs to computers that are far smarter than they are, then perish at 60”?
Uh, right.
Look, Google is a search engine, not 1984. We should be concerned with violations of privacy, but there's no cause for hysteria.
And please, before you go on a politically correct rant over the under-representation of women in technology, look at the number of women who are applying to engineering schools, and also at the gap in test scores between accepted male and female applicants.
Uh, right.
Look, Google is a search engine, not 1984. We should be concerned with violations of privacy, but there's no cause for hysteria.
And please, before you go on a politically correct rant over the under-representation of women in technology, look at the number of women who are applying to engineering schools, and also at the gap in test scores between accepted male and female applicants.
4
You are prefectly right to point out that the average acceptance score in tech schools is lower for female than for males, which is discrimination. Likewise it is much more difficult for male PhD's in science than for females to get tenured in academic careers even with a better track record. We are not going to solve our shortage of qualified engineers in the US by lowering the bar for some categories of applicants. This is both unfair and counterproductive.
1
''look at the number of women who are applying to engineering schools, and also at the gap in test scores between accepted male and female applicants.''
some specific numbers, please.
some specific numbers, please.
1
Jhbev, here's an article that has numbers on admissions odds and numbers at prominent engineering schools:
http://time.com/money/4147738/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/
Note that the percentage of women is much higher than it has been in the past, and this is reflected in the fact that for example Google has only 17% female employees.
Gender differences on the SAT math test:
http://www.aei.org/publication/2016-sat-test-results-confirm-pattern-tha...
http://time.com/money/4147738/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/
Note that the percentage of women is much higher than it has been in the past, and this is reflected in the fact that for example Google has only 17% female employees.
Gender differences on the SAT math test:
http://www.aei.org/publication/2016-sat-test-results-confirm-pattern-tha...
Taking your personal data is one thing, but probably small potatoes compared to the bio-medical folks who are after your blood (DNA). While collecting all your genetic information and sharing it with others may help advance some medical causes, mostly it will benefit a small number of people who can manipulate the data and make huge amounts of money by doing so. Plus they will make yet more drugs that people can't afford. Ironically, the very same people who paid for the research in the first place - and then willingly gave them their identity.
The rich will live longer so that the health gap will continue to keep pace with the wealth gap. Zuckerberg is now moving into biomedical. Is this philanthropy or more of the same - give me your very identity and I will own the world. These people do NOT have your best interests at heart.
The great American rip off of the public is just ramping up.
The rich will live longer so that the health gap will continue to keep pace with the wealth gap. Zuckerberg is now moving into biomedical. Is this philanthropy or more of the same - give me your very identity and I will own the world. These people do NOT have your best interests at heart.
The great American rip off of the public is just ramping up.
9
Women are rare in tech. But look at the projects of the Github communities and they are even rarer. At high school hacking groups they are just as rare.
What appeals to men more than women is the pioneering spirit of such endeavors. You see that also in tech companies that often start as a kind of pioneering fraternities.
What you see in Damore's essay is both a longing for that pioneering spirit and an effort to explain the lack of women in tech.
Google should have written an essay in which it countered his points and provided an alternative vision. By shooting the messenger they just showed hypocrisy.
What appeals to men more than women is the pioneering spirit of such endeavors. You see that also in tech companies that often start as a kind of pioneering fraternities.
What you see in Damore's essay is both a longing for that pioneering spirit and an effort to explain the lack of women in tech.
Google should have written an essay in which it countered his points and provided an alternative vision. By shooting the messenger they just showed hypocrisy.
8
FYI: those essays have been written long ago already.
Just go to the library and use your "pioneering spirit" to discover what science has to say about women's bodies ... you'll see, it will be a great adventure, given what place you seem to start from ... ;-)
Just go to the library and use your "pioneering spirit" to discover what science has to say about women's bodies ... you'll see, it will be a great adventure, given what place you seem to start from ... ;-)
1
This is exactly what I thought after reading his letter and seeing Google's reaction. Instead of explaining in detail why what he said was incorrect, if it was, and why it wasa breach of their code of conduct - again, if indeed it was - they decided to go the idiotic route of pretending that the issue(s) with his writing are so self-evkdent that Google doesn't need to dignify it with a point-by-point refutation (a laughably bad idea for, appareny, everybody other than Google's PR), resulting in a woefully shallow response, which smacked of a company trying to protect its stock price at all costs...
1
Judging people based on their individual merit rather than their social or genetic background is like denying women the right to vote? Hmmm. Among other moral flaws this is the seed of people who react by confusing civilization and race.
My pet peeve and probably many like me is the carefully planned obsolescence of high tech products almost to the point that the latest item purchased is obsolete as soon as you walk out the door with it.
The word "repair" has been consigned to the landfill with resulting consequence of permanent damage to our ecosystems.
The word "repair" has been consigned to the landfill with resulting consequence of permanent damage to our ecosystems.
19
If one gas company controlled 90% of all gas stations-there is no doubt that that company would be broken up just as Standard Oil was. I find it amazing that our government has not gone down this path. When one company controls the total market place we all suffer from lack of competition. If Amazon was to control 90% of all retail business in the US that too would be anticompetitive.
It is time for our countries legal departments to take control of this matter and seek a reasonable solution.
It is time for our countries legal departments to take control of this matter and seek a reasonable solution.
13
I remember when the gov't decided Ma Bell was too big for her britches and divided her into a gazillion different pieces up for grabs. Gone was customer satisfaction, dependable service and live phone operators on the other end. We've come a long way from the era of shared party-lines where callers could listen in to private conversations "accidentally on purpose."
I'm willing to be open to criticism of big tech giants such as Google (after all, taking a critical stand is beneficial to all sides involved, especially when it's constructive criticism), but this article is much too vague to be able to do something concrete with it.
In the meanwhile, I can perfectly imagine that Silicon Valley is full of short-sighted macho libertarians when it comes to politics - as the note written by Damore once again shows. And of course Google did the right thing by firing him.
But ... the people running these businesses clearly aren't libertarians, they're often Democrats or even progressives. They clearly support equality for women. And who can forget the absolutely revolutionary approach to all forms of bigotry and hatred that Google has cultivated internally for years now, with their outstanding mindfulness courses for their own employees, and the huge investment and development of the "Search inside yourself Leadership Institute", that has to guts to offer concrete and scientifically proven tools to business leaders all over the world to learn how the most effective leadership is based on emotional intelligence and compassion ... ?
EVEN if it would only be a marketing tool, it's producing its effects everywhere.
I cannot but applaud companies like that, and hope that within a decade, each and every business in America follows their lead, and invests in its employees mental and physical health the way Google does.
In the meanwhile, I can perfectly imagine that Silicon Valley is full of short-sighted macho libertarians when it comes to politics - as the note written by Damore once again shows. And of course Google did the right thing by firing him.
But ... the people running these businesses clearly aren't libertarians, they're often Democrats or even progressives. They clearly support equality for women. And who can forget the absolutely revolutionary approach to all forms of bigotry and hatred that Google has cultivated internally for years now, with their outstanding mindfulness courses for their own employees, and the huge investment and development of the "Search inside yourself Leadership Institute", that has to guts to offer concrete and scientifically proven tools to business leaders all over the world to learn how the most effective leadership is based on emotional intelligence and compassion ... ?
EVEN if it would only be a marketing tool, it's producing its effects everywhere.
I cannot but applaud companies like that, and hope that within a decade, each and every business in America follows their lead, and invests in its employees mental and physical health the way Google does.
6
Why is it that "competition" is so often seen as a good, positive thing? With whom are we competing?
9
This is more of a delusional paranoid rant against Google and Facebook. These companies get to be what they are because they offer great products with constant innovations.
Also, male and female hiring gap could also be due to the fact that there are less female students pursuing computer science and engineering majors. Even if there were an increase in female students in these majors, the gap will take many years to close.
Also, male and female hiring gap could also be due to the fact that there are less female students pursuing computer science and engineering majors. Even if there were an increase in female students in these majors, the gap will take many years to close.
4
Way to entirely miss the point(s).
If you wanted to change that, you'd need to start WAY earlier -- kindergarten -- to get more girls interested in math, and more girls following math/science tracks in middle and high school -- you can't suddenly show up when people are 22-24 and say "golly gee, why are there only 18% women in this group?".
I hope this isn't too far afield but Google, or for that matter just about any and every company care as much about us as the professional sports franchise's care about their fans. We are only as valuable as the tickets we buy and our willingness to give the billionaire team owners humongous tax subsidies for the supposed privilege of having a hometown team to root for. Their loyalty to their fans or their communities last about as long as their next arena deal.
The human thinking that has us anthropomorphize and personify non-human objects and ideas that make it easy to see relationships with such objects or ideas that are actually non-existent. In a sense, all of marketing is built on tapping into this human quality and exploiting it for ones own benefit. Technology hasn't changed this long standing manipulation of own behavior but it has certainly made it easier to do on a vast scale.
I'm not trying to defend Google in anyway that just because everyone does it makes it okay. To the contrary, I am suggesting that people need to wake up and break the shackles that allow our human nature to be manipulated by others and at least try to take back control over our own minds and our own lives.
The human thinking that has us anthropomorphize and personify non-human objects and ideas that make it easy to see relationships with such objects or ideas that are actually non-existent. In a sense, all of marketing is built on tapping into this human quality and exploiting it for ones own benefit. Technology hasn't changed this long standing manipulation of own behavior but it has certainly made it easier to do on a vast scale.
I'm not trying to defend Google in anyway that just because everyone does it makes it okay. To the contrary, I am suggesting that people need to wake up and break the shackles that allow our human nature to be manipulated by others and at least try to take back control over our own minds and our own lives.
20
Yeah, and what about all the benefits the tech giants provide us. I mean, I'm not complaining that all my friends are on the same social media network (Facebook) and that my phones apps work well with my phone (Google) or that I can order anything I can think of and have it on my doorstep in two days (Amazon). I get there are potential negative effects of having tech giants, but there are also major quantifiable benefits.
14
Well I prefer Amazon and Apple.
We have become a wholly owned subsidiary of marketing. Hair and makeup, interlinked promotions, money makes the world go around ... until it doesn't.
Marketing doesn't care about the truth. Virtual reality isn't real, but people prefer it. That's all they need.
Except the planet! That could be a problem. Time to wake up.
Marketing doesn't care about the truth. Virtual reality isn't real, but people prefer it. That's all they need.
Except the planet! That could be a problem. Time to wake up.
40
This article's premise is that Google is covertly right wing because Peter Thiel also is located in Silicon Valley is bizarre. On August 31, 2016 Wired reported that more money was donated to Hillary Clinton by Google employees than by any other company in the country during the previous month. The ratio of Clinton to Trump donations from Google employees that month was $174,000 to $250.
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/techies-donate-clinton-droves-trump-not-much/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/techies-donate-clinton-droves-trump-not-much/
14
And what does that prove? Not a thing. The employees may have donated to Hilary but that says nothing about Sergei and Larry and their true intentions with Google.
7
Your comments are not germain to the article. I would also be suspicous of the wired article to on the donationa ratio amounts after all these would be made privately and not through their employer.
Microsoft had a monopoly for years, in desktop computing. It was very difficult for companies to make another choice.
Google isn't a monopoly in that sense. If you don't like Google's policies you can switch to Bing search tomorrow, with virtually indistinguishable results. And you can switch to Yahoo email; missing some features, in my opinion, but you can still communicate with anyone via email. Same with calendars.
Or, if you're worried about privacy, you can search Google, and browse the web, in a "private browsing" window or, if you're actually paranoid, using a TOR browser.
Anyway, all these alternatives are comparable and free so, really, it's not a monopoly.
Also, (this is also tangentially related to monopoly) Google search (or email) doesn't get a big boost from the network effect ["The network effect is a phenomenon whereby a good or service becomes more valuable when more people use it.']. I.E., I don't care which search engine or email service my friends use. With Facebook, however, the network effect means everything.
Google isn't a monopoly in that sense. If you don't like Google's policies you can switch to Bing search tomorrow, with virtually indistinguishable results. And you can switch to Yahoo email; missing some features, in my opinion, but you can still communicate with anyone via email. Same with calendars.
Or, if you're worried about privacy, you can search Google, and browse the web, in a "private browsing" window or, if you're actually paranoid, using a TOR browser.
Anyway, all these alternatives are comparable and free so, really, it's not a monopoly.
Also, (this is also tangentially related to monopoly) Google search (or email) doesn't get a big boost from the network effect ["The network effect is a phenomenon whereby a good or service becomes more valuable when more people use it.']. I.E., I don't care which search engine or email service my friends use. With Facebook, however, the network effect means everything.
29
If you think using a "private browsing window" means privacy on the Internet, you'd better think again.
Of course Google doesn't want what's best for us; no public or other for-profit corporation does. By law and in practice they want what's best for their shareholders due to their primary fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder return. That's American capitalism, for better or worse.
The idea that a for-profit corporation is interested in the needs of people, the public, or even its customers is a dangerous, naive myth.
No matter how "cool" or non-traditional a company presents it self as being, it is still just a business focused on making a profit. Some companies, e.g. Apple and Google, have initial reputations as being hip, anti-establishment, people-focused, and cool but not matter how different they seem to be at first, or how much they cultivate their non-mainstream image, in the end they are no different from any other for-profit corporation. They are out to make money, to control as much of their market as possible, and exploit their customers and workers in pursuit of their primary rationale--profits and maximizing shareholder return.
The idea that a for-profit corporation is interested in the needs of people, the public, or even its customers is a dangerous, naive myth.
No matter how "cool" or non-traditional a company presents it self as being, it is still just a business focused on making a profit. Some companies, e.g. Apple and Google, have initial reputations as being hip, anti-establishment, people-focused, and cool but not matter how different they seem to be at first, or how much they cultivate their non-mainstream image, in the end they are no different from any other for-profit corporation. They are out to make money, to control as much of their market as possible, and exploit their customers and workers in pursuit of their primary rationale--profits and maximizing shareholder return.
72
Not true. The US Supreme Court just held in the Hobby Lobby case, “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”
Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values.
Is it the highest possible quarterly dividend for the next quarter? It it the highest average dividends for the next ten years? Is it the highest possible stock price by the end of the quarter? Is it the highest possible stock price in ten years? Those four things likely would require different actions.
Shareholder assets of value include a workforce the skills and high productivity. That means training some of them, and motivating all of them.
Shareholder assets include the road and rail connections they use to ship. The value of their property is "location, location, location," and that is heavily dependent on road and rail conditions allowing them to be productive.
Shareholder assets include reliable legal systems and safety at the plant, which security issues have brought some back from Mexico for example.
Thus, the corporations role as stakeholder in its community is important to its value to shareholders. The entity is a living group made up of people, not just cold bricks and pallets of stuff.
Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values.
Is it the highest possible quarterly dividend for the next quarter? It it the highest average dividends for the next ten years? Is it the highest possible stock price by the end of the quarter? Is it the highest possible stock price in ten years? Those four things likely would require different actions.
Shareholder assets of value include a workforce the skills and high productivity. That means training some of them, and motivating all of them.
Shareholder assets include the road and rail connections they use to ship. The value of their property is "location, location, location," and that is heavily dependent on road and rail conditions allowing them to be productive.
Shareholder assets include reliable legal systems and safety at the plant, which security issues have brought some back from Mexico for example.
Thus, the corporations role as stakeholder in its community is important to its value to shareholders. The entity is a living group made up of people, not just cold bricks and pallets of stuff.
11
The Hobby Lobby decision had nothing whatsoever to do with this. What it did was to exclude certain parties from a law promoting equal access by all citizens. The decision being based on a fundamentalist concept having no basis in fact.
13
Greatpix -- True the main thrust of Hobby Lobby is another issue.
However, it is a very recent holding of law on the key fact, in which the US Supreme Court wrote what I quoted here.
Maximizing of shareholder value is NOT the one and only fiduciary duty of corporate leadership, and in fact many corporations don't do that.
The US Supreme Court said so, and so that is the law. The many protestations that corporations "must" do that are just false.
However, it is a very recent holding of law on the key fact, in which the US Supreme Court wrote what I quoted here.
Maximizing of shareholder value is NOT the one and only fiduciary duty of corporate leadership, and in fact many corporations don't do that.
The US Supreme Court said so, and so that is the law. The many protestations that corporations "must" do that are just false.
Big Brother, as Orwell told us in "1984," was something to fear and fight against. Totalitarian government with access to high technology indeed is worrisome. But a greater menace, in many respects, is the threat posed in our time by the Little Brothers like Google, Facebook and the many other data-mining businesses that offer us things we didn't know we needed — often supposedly free, but actually at a hidden but very high price.
17
I don't care much for all the snooping either, but I have to ask, since it was suggested: what very high price are we paying for these tools?
Big Brother would disappear you if you opposed the party. I'm not quite sure how Google or one of the other giants knowing my shoe size and maybe targeting an ad I'll ignore at me compares.
You might enjoy, by the way: an episode of 'Black Mirror' entitled "Fifteen Million Merits."
Big Brother would disappear you if you opposed the party. I'm not quite sure how Google or one of the other giants knowing my shoe size and maybe targeting an ad I'll ignore at me compares.
You might enjoy, by the way: an episode of 'Black Mirror' entitled "Fifteen Million Merits."
Let's see how much privacy we have given up: Google and other companies regularly scan your email so they can send you ads targeted to subjects in those emails. They collect meta data on where emails go for marketing purposes, but also have the capability to track individuals. Your location via your cell phone is tracked within feet. Particularly when you go into stores. Companies know how much time you spend in front of each display and they sell that information to the businesses. Companies also track your phone so that if you are nearby they can 'push' ads to your phone. This technology also has more sinister uses as well. Google, Amazon and others are selling technology that you buy and bring home, that listens to everything around it. It can order items for you and answer questions. But it is also sending everything it hears to 'cloud servers.' Who has access to this data and its uses are not readily known. Already at least one law enforcement agency as subpoenaed Google's records for a household that has one of these devices. When you go out, you are routinely photographed and video taped. Face recognition technology makes identification now automatic. Same for your car when you are driving.
So my question is what is my expectation of privacy? Also, if someone is making money off of me and or my movements shouldn't I have to give permission? Shouldn't I be compensated for my data? What is actually mine? Would someone with money test this, please?
So my question is what is my expectation of privacy? Also, if someone is making money off of me and or my movements shouldn't I have to give permission? Shouldn't I be compensated for my data? What is actually mine? Would someone with money test this, please?
85
This is what class action suits are for. But of course the Trump administration and Republicans are trying to curtail our access to the courts and the ability to bring such suits.
The best way to protect privacy is no smart cell phones and no social media. If you got rid of email that would help too.
The best way to protect privacy is no smart cell phones and no social media. If you got rid of email that would help too.
2
You are right. We should be compensated for our data!
It's really messed up that these companies know everything there is to know about us, and we're just sitting ducks..
How is this data theft legal?
It's really messed up that these companies know everything there is to know about us, and we're just sitting ducks..
How is this data theft legal?
Choose not to be found. Turn off location finding on your phone. Make sure you anchor your Android phone to an identity not you. Use other search engines. Ramp up your security on your computer and insist on highest security when connecting with the internet.
If you don't know how to do these things, technically speaking, keep asking until you find out. You control your interactions with those who are seeking to use you as the product.
Don't let them.
Check out the post by Lawyermom. She's right on.
If you don't know how to do these things, technically speaking, keep asking until you find out. You control your interactions with those who are seeking to use you as the product.
Don't let them.
Check out the post by Lawyermom. She's right on.
The problem with technology is that we tend to listen to the evangelists while treating those who suggest caution as luddites and cranks. However, history has shown that those who caution us have a much better track record. In the right hands technology can be a tremendous force for good. But in our market driven society it is too often in the hands of those who seek only to further their personal gain at the expense of others. indeed, one need only compare the number of employees at GE vs. Google and Apple to see that these companies have contributed enormously to the disparity of wealth. It is past time to reevaluate our love affair with technology. The price we pay for the dubious widgets produced by Silicon Valley may be the most precious parts of our society.
31
This seems to be more a criticism of capitalism than technology.
However, I would agree: technologies like Facebook and Twitter have themselves done a lot of cultural damage, spreading misinformation and polarizing people. How many hours of productivity have been lost to social media?
However, I would agree: technologies like Facebook and Twitter have themselves done a lot of cultural damage, spreading misinformation and polarizing people. How many hours of productivity have been lost to social media?
7
Capitalism + science = technology. That's the problem...our capitalist world deploys science where money wants it to go, not where it would be best for people or the planet.
1
To quote the writer of the article: "Because tools like Google and Facebook have become so essential and because we have almost no choice in whether to use them..."
While this may be true for a vast majority, I elect to opt out of social media almost entirely. Yet I know I am still subject to these corporate megaliths simply because my fellow humans have elected to embrace them without much thought for anything but their own narcissistic behaviors. Those who imagine, and I would like to stress the word "imagine", that Apple, Google, and Facebook represent anything but good old corporate greed and behavior patterns are in total denial.
While this may be true for a vast majority, I elect to opt out of social media almost entirely. Yet I know I am still subject to these corporate megaliths simply because my fellow humans have elected to embrace them without much thought for anything but their own narcissistic behaviors. Those who imagine, and I would like to stress the word "imagine", that Apple, Google, and Facebook represent anything but good old corporate greed and behavior patterns are in total denial.
1
What nonsense.
FB and Google cannot be compared to utilities for example, which even if they are owned by private interests, the common good dictates higher regulation and de-monopolization.
Facebook is not essential to citizens. In fact you could make a case as the man from Brooklyn comments below about millennials obsession with their smart phones, that it is in fact making society dumber and thus is against common good in that sense. Ultimately it is free choice by the users.
Google is not the internet. They are a private company and to the extent that they operate within the laws (and they are free to lobby for or against any particular regulation), its their business as to what values they espouse vs practice.
Discrimination laws mandate non-discrimination. There is no law that says to dilute your competitiveness through diversity. Its against the law to force the company to do so.
As the FB diversity officer herself stated, they are not in the business of giving away jobs.
Private companies have no obligations to society beyond operating within the laws, paying taxes, and non-discrimination.
FB and Google cannot be compared to utilities for example, which even if they are owned by private interests, the common good dictates higher regulation and de-monopolization.
Facebook is not essential to citizens. In fact you could make a case as the man from Brooklyn comments below about millennials obsession with their smart phones, that it is in fact making society dumber and thus is against common good in that sense. Ultimately it is free choice by the users.
Google is not the internet. They are a private company and to the extent that they operate within the laws (and they are free to lobby for or against any particular regulation), its their business as to what values they espouse vs practice.
Discrimination laws mandate non-discrimination. There is no law that says to dilute your competitiveness through diversity. Its against the law to force the company to do so.
As the FB diversity officer herself stated, they are not in the business of giving away jobs.
Private companies have no obligations to society beyond operating within the laws, paying taxes, and non-discrimination.
13
"FB and Google cannot be compared to utilities for example, which even if they are owned by private interests, the common good dictates higher regulation and de-monopolization."
Sure they can be. Necessity is not and never was the sole criterion for determining who or what gets classed as a 'utility'. 'Natural monopoly' is the standard. If markets don't work, if a service cannot be provided competitively by numerous providers fighting for customers on an equal footing, if the mechanism for provision of the service inevitably devolves into monopoly........ then you got yourself a candidate for 'utility'.
Sure they can be. Necessity is not and never was the sole criterion for determining who or what gets classed as a 'utility'. 'Natural monopoly' is the standard. If markets don't work, if a service cannot be provided competitively by numerous providers fighting for customers on an equal footing, if the mechanism for provision of the service inevitably devolves into monopoly........ then you got yourself a candidate for 'utility'.
12
banzai: "There is no law that says to dilute your competitiveness through diversity. Its against the law to force the company to do so."
Equally there's no law that says you can't foster diversity if you believe it will enhance your competitiveness, increase the attractiveness of your products to a broader set of customers, and thereby make your shareholders a bigger boatload of money. That is very likely exactly what Google executives will contend they were doing if Mr. Damore pursues his lawsuit. Is it really difficult to guess which side will prevail in USA courts?
Equally there's no law that says you can't foster diversity if you believe it will enhance your competitiveness, increase the attractiveness of your products to a broader set of customers, and thereby make your shareholders a bigger boatload of money. That is very likely exactly what Google executives will contend they were doing if Mr. Damore pursues his lawsuit. Is it really difficult to guess which side will prevail in USA courts?
7
How many websites that Google removed from its index have you been to this past week?
1
Neither Google nor Facebook are necessary to daily existence. I often use other search engines for info, and I go directly to my preferred brands' websites (or stores!). As for Facebook, I have an account that's been dormant for years. I can write, call, visit or email individuals, just like people had been doing for millennia, or at least decades. If you don't want to bother contacting me that way, then don't complain when I'm unaware that you deserve congrats or need help. Any system that generates thousands of so-called "friends" is useless unless you're trying to sell them something-- and in that case, they are potential customers, not friends. Those who believe otherwise are delusional.
94
Exactly. And you don't need a smart phone either though it's hard to travel now without one. I hear a lot of people saying they don't use Facebook anymore. But not enough people apparently.
1
Sadly, a lot of people who use Facebook seriously think that if they have 1000 friends on Facebook...they actually have 1000 FRIENDS.
Even worse, they live & breathe to post minutiae about their lives -- what they eat or wear or do -- and get "likes". Getting "likes" seems to be the currency of exchange on Facebook; people actually get mad at you if you do not "like" their posts often enough OR if you "like" posts of others they do not approve of.
They use Facebook to dump political screeds and idiot cat videos on everyone they know (then get at you for liking or not liking certain ones) and MEANWHILE as we are all distracted by this like a pack of morons....Facebook is extracting our data, our friends, our shopping habits, etc. and SELLING THAT DATA. Otherwise, they are a service with no product to sell. They would not be worth billions otherwise.
It is ALL about selling things to others, and monetizing things that formerly could not be monetized (i.e., one friend recommending to another to see a certain film, or go eat at a certain restaurant).
Even worse, they live & breathe to post minutiae about their lives -- what they eat or wear or do -- and get "likes". Getting "likes" seems to be the currency of exchange on Facebook; people actually get mad at you if you do not "like" their posts often enough OR if you "like" posts of others they do not approve of.
They use Facebook to dump political screeds and idiot cat videos on everyone they know (then get at you for liking or not liking certain ones) and MEANWHILE as we are all distracted by this like a pack of morons....Facebook is extracting our data, our friends, our shopping habits, etc. and SELLING THAT DATA. Otherwise, they are a service with no product to sell. They would not be worth billions otherwise.
It is ALL about selling things to others, and monetizing things that formerly could not be monetized (i.e., one friend recommending to another to see a certain film, or go eat at a certain restaurant).
And right now, Apple are busy helping the Chinese government in its effort to control information flow and suppress critical voices by removing access to apps, including that of the New York Times. Just so nobody is under any illusion that these quasi-monopolists have any so-called "values" other than dominating market share. Who knows what objectively worse regimes these corporations would similarly empower, or indeed, have empowered?
Our tech giants are drivers of inequality, enablers of propaganda, subverters of democracy, unleashers of malware, and untrustworthy guardians of a dizzying amount of intensely personal data that we individuals have no control over. They are ready to usher in a Brave New World of disruption that will leave the vast majority slaves to their devices but with no avenues of gainful employment. And this will happen with no debate, no airing of concerns and no chance for the majority to have any say in outcomes. The mainstream media agencies these tech giants either control directly or have the power to intimidate will see to that.
Our tech giants are drivers of inequality, enablers of propaganda, subverters of democracy, unleashers of malware, and untrustworthy guardians of a dizzying amount of intensely personal data that we individuals have no control over. They are ready to usher in a Brave New World of disruption that will leave the vast majority slaves to their devices but with no avenues of gainful employment. And this will happen with no debate, no airing of concerns and no chance for the majority to have any say in outcomes. The mainstream media agencies these tech giants either control directly or have the power to intimidate will see to that.
44
So this is the problem the Left has with Google: it invades our privacy and brings the garish reality of the low-life world into our homes.
The conservative Right has a much more fundamental problem with Google - that it plays progressive politics. Items that buttress the conservative position of an issue are apparently pushed farther and farther back in the listings. This has gone on too long to be a mere accident.
This week's hysterical events regarding the too-free-speech from a worker there highlight the ersatz philosophy you always get when progressives run an organization and convert it into politically correct parlor games.
The conservative Right has a much more fundamental problem with Google - that it plays progressive politics. Items that buttress the conservative position of an issue are apparently pushed farther and farther back in the listings. This has gone on too long to be a mere accident.
This week's hysterical events regarding the too-free-speech from a worker there highlight the ersatz philosophy you always get when progressives run an organization and convert it into politically correct parlor games.
5
That would be true, IF we still had the Grand Old Party. We don't anymore. For two decades now, it has been replaced by neocons, who were more recently (a bit criticized but basically) joined by the far-right (an adventure called the "alt-right").
Both don't seem confident in conservatism as a philosophy anymore, so they now go deliberately against everything that has been proven true but that doesn't fit neatly into their own rigid ideology.
As a consequence, they suspect everyone who still respects science and proven facts to be a "liberal".
In other words, they politicize almost everything. Even what has been biologically proven about men and women is no longer science in their eyes, but merely politics. And even when their ideology now controls DC on all levels, they still feel so threatened and insecure that they now want to be able to openly AND publicly spread their anti-scientific opinions ... from their own work floor, as if somehow capitalism and the freedom of a CEO to choose his brand image and employees has become less important than being able to yell your own falsehoods no matter where, no matter when.
Google has put "science" at the center of its activity and brand image. In that case, you can't have employees using their firm's email address to spread the most archaic falsehoods about issues as fundamental as women's bodies. Damore is free to express himself, but if he decides to blatantly ignore science, he shouldn't expect to work at a science firm.
Both don't seem confident in conservatism as a philosophy anymore, so they now go deliberately against everything that has been proven true but that doesn't fit neatly into their own rigid ideology.
As a consequence, they suspect everyone who still respects science and proven facts to be a "liberal".
In other words, they politicize almost everything. Even what has been biologically proven about men and women is no longer science in their eyes, but merely politics. And even when their ideology now controls DC on all levels, they still feel so threatened and insecure that they now want to be able to openly AND publicly spread their anti-scientific opinions ... from their own work floor, as if somehow capitalism and the freedom of a CEO to choose his brand image and employees has become less important than being able to yell your own falsehoods no matter where, no matter when.
Google has put "science" at the center of its activity and brand image. In that case, you can't have employees using their firm's email address to spread the most archaic falsehoods about issues as fundamental as women's bodies. Damore is free to express himself, but if he decides to blatantly ignore science, he shouldn't expect to work at a science firm.
5
Tech billionaires have undergone far too little scrutiny. Even their philanthropic activity deserves more scrutiny.
The third to last paragraph makes me shudder. It changes Hunger Games from a dystopian fantasy into a worrisome prophecy.
The third to last paragraph makes me shudder. It changes Hunger Games from a dystopian fantasy into a worrisome prophecy.
21
Yet this is probably just a matter of time. AI research has long been overly-optimistic, but the existence of our brains proves intelligence from a physical system is possible. We'll crack it eventually. And robots are certainly better laborers.
The question will be can we get ahead of it with an appropriate societal model when most people no longer have anything to contribute, such as moving from capitalism to basic income (or just obsoleting money), with a focus on education and other ways to contribute to society. Either it'll be abject plutocracy like 'Hunger Games,' an enlightened society of plenty like 'Star Trek,' or 'Idiocracy.' My money's on a mixture of Hunger Games and Idiocracy, with the few rich people owning all the machines, and everyone else mindlessly pushing buttons while living in squalor and stupidity.
The question will be can we get ahead of it with an appropriate societal model when most people no longer have anything to contribute, such as moving from capitalism to basic income (or just obsoleting money), with a focus on education and other ways to contribute to society. Either it'll be abject plutocracy like 'Hunger Games,' an enlightened society of plenty like 'Star Trek,' or 'Idiocracy.' My money's on a mixture of Hunger Games and Idiocracy, with the few rich people owning all the machines, and everyone else mindlessly pushing buttons while living in squalor and stupidity.
First off, about sexism...I have a feeling that hiring by Google reflects their libertarian evaluation of what's going to make them money, male, female or other.
About tech monopolies controlling our lives, this is the result of a lack of competition, permitted by complacent anti-trust policies (think campaign financing, lobbying). As long as we allow powerful companies to buy up every innovative start-up, we are indeed in for weird times. Once again, Europe is ahead of us on this question.
About tech monopolies controlling our lives, this is the result of a lack of competition, permitted by complacent anti-trust policies (think campaign financing, lobbying). As long as we allow powerful companies to buy up every innovative start-up, we are indeed in for weird times. Once again, Europe is ahead of us on this question.
35
The hiring percentages at Google reflect the fact that roughly 18% of undergrad tech degrees are held by women. It really has very little to do with Google. They can push for more hiring of women, but they still have to hire qualified people, and that means that the gender balance will roughly reflect worker availability: 18%. They do have higher percentages of women in non-tech positions. It stands to reason the fewer women in management positions is also an artifact of fewer women having been in the industry for as long.
I agree about our anti-trust policies being too weak - and that certainly applies to industry outside of Silicon Valley, as well.
I agree about our anti-trust policies being too weak - and that certainly applies to industry outside of Silicon Valley, as well.
8
And the fact our government has completely dropped the ball on creating regulations to protect the public. That is the most important reason we have no protection.
Too busy trying to overturn Obama care and steal Supreme Court seats.
Too busy trying to overturn Obama care and steal Supreme Court seats.
1
I agree (Recommended, Thumbs Up!), but I wouldn't put a focus on hiring for maximum profit on "libertarian evaluation". I've worked in many different businesses over the years, including ones founded by and/or with top managers who are staunch Democrats and believe in a fairly robust welfare state. Their hiring goals and management practices are indistinguishable from others I've worked for. (In fact, I've found them on average a bit less compassionate, but the sample size isn't big enough, so that's anecdotal). Anyway, managers and executives are rightly focused on delivering the best bottom line results. They are subject to laws, regulations, and corporate policies, and cultural practices, which establish boundary conditions.
Security needs to be available intrinsically in our devices. Security is essential to safety and personal autonomy.
7
I've been involved with technology for over 25 years, having worked in Silicon Valley at some point in my career.
I remember using the Delphi dial-up service in the '80s, and hen Netscape, which helped open up the Internet for what are now billions of people.
During this time, as an industry insider, and as a civic-minded citizen, I've seen the trajectory technology has taken, which under the sadistic libertarian ideology, leads to a familiar destination: monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels; and of course, further corruption of our political system.
The problem with technology is not technology, but ideology; libertarian ideology, to be precise.
If technology is viewed as a tool for the public good, then its benefits would be widely-distributed, instead of flowing towards the pockets of a very tiny minority.
Automation, artificial intelligence, and other advances could free people up from drudgery, if for example, some type of universal income were to be implemented. Some people would then have time to engage in art, music, philosophy, writing, study, civic engagement. This would enrich our entire society, figuratively, and literally.
Instead, under the brutish libertarian ideology, a parasitic ruling (tech) elite is accruing most of the profits from technology, while causing all kinds of social dysfunction, the dislocation of millions of people (gentrification), homelessness, poverty, and misery.
I remember using the Delphi dial-up service in the '80s, and hen Netscape, which helped open up the Internet for what are now billions of people.
During this time, as an industry insider, and as a civic-minded citizen, I've seen the trajectory technology has taken, which under the sadistic libertarian ideology, leads to a familiar destination: monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels; and of course, further corruption of our political system.
The problem with technology is not technology, but ideology; libertarian ideology, to be precise.
If technology is viewed as a tool for the public good, then its benefits would be widely-distributed, instead of flowing towards the pockets of a very tiny minority.
Automation, artificial intelligence, and other advances could free people up from drudgery, if for example, some type of universal income were to be implemented. Some people would then have time to engage in art, music, philosophy, writing, study, civic engagement. This would enrich our entire society, figuratively, and literally.
Instead, under the brutish libertarian ideology, a parasitic ruling (tech) elite is accruing most of the profits from technology, while causing all kinds of social dysfunction, the dislocation of millions of people (gentrification), homelessness, poverty, and misery.
178
Liberals have such an odd, naive view of "basic guaranteed income" -- it is not remotely what you think. Even putting aside "how you would pay for it" (in a nation with 330 million people!)....BGI is only a few hundred dollars.
Finland is implementing such a plan right now, and it replaces their former welfare program -- dollar for dollar -- or about $645 a month per person.
When you write about people engaging in music, art, writing, etc., I feel sure you are imagining them having a generous middle class income of $40-$60K a year!!! BGI does not even remotely do that.
It gives people an extremely minimal welfare income. The only advantage it offers over traditional welfare, is there are no restriction if the recipient wants to work part time to supplement the BGI.
But $645 a month won't let you "study art" -- it's just enough so you have food, clothing, a TV set and probably some subsidized housing -- so you can spend your days sleeping late, watching soap operas or playing video games.
Clearly you do not know anybody on welfare or SSDI; I do. I know what they do all day and it's NOT studying, art, music or civil engagement. It gives them the ability to be lazy, useless slobs on the public dole. Nothing more.
Finland is implementing such a plan right now, and it replaces their former welfare program -- dollar for dollar -- or about $645 a month per person.
When you write about people engaging in music, art, writing, etc., I feel sure you are imagining them having a generous middle class income of $40-$60K a year!!! BGI does not even remotely do that.
It gives people an extremely minimal welfare income. The only advantage it offers over traditional welfare, is there are no restriction if the recipient wants to work part time to supplement the BGI.
But $645 a month won't let you "study art" -- it's just enough so you have food, clothing, a TV set and probably some subsidized housing -- so you can spend your days sleeping late, watching soap operas or playing video games.
Clearly you do not know anybody on welfare or SSDI; I do. I know what they do all day and it's NOT studying, art, music or civil engagement. It gives them the ability to be lazy, useless slobs on the public dole. Nothing more.
Finally another mention of surveillance capitalism in the major media. After we're done with Trump, after we've moved on to a new phase of trying to get everyone paid well and equally: surveillance capitalism, the tracking and selling of our personal data, and the manipulation of individuals and populations that comes with it, will be molding human society in new and unpredictable ways. THIS is the issue that's finally making me a conspiracy theorist! (See the work of Shoshana Zuboff. Use your library's interlibrary loan feature to read her paper.)
14
A corporation isn't an appropriate framework for fighting out the solutions to social issues: it's an employment engine, a profit-making engine, a fit subject of regulation, a place where innovation is forged from incentives; and absolutely necessary to our way of life.
You want what's "best for us"? Start a blog and make your pitch.
You want what's "best for us"? Start a blog and make your pitch.
8
Now you can see the point of patriots who have resisted making the U.S. military into just another social justice experiment played out for the progressive mindset.
At least, when one company becomes totally warped by politics, as with Mozilla, the worker can find another similar employer. It isn't that way with the Army and Navy.
I am stunned at the market value of Facebook. I could drop it tomorrow and never look back.
At least, when one company becomes totally warped by politics, as with Mozilla, the worker can find another similar employer. It isn't that way with the Army and Navy.
I am stunned at the market value of Facebook. I could drop it tomorrow and never look back.
4
Where exactly should social issues be hashed out, if not partially at corporations? I don't hold that Google is to blame for their gender diversity problem, but they should certainly be part of the solution, encouraging women to enter tech, and competing to hire them.
All people should try to live conscientiously and responsibly, and that includes while they're trying to make money. It's a rather shocking argument to suggest that scruples go out the door once money is involved. That's precisely the problem.
L'Osservatore, including people of various genders isn't a "social justice experiment." It's equality, liberty, and self-determination. I thought you right-wingers were all about that.... Any person who wants to get shot at to defend the country should be allowed to. The right-wing snowflakes who might get offended can take a hike.
Put your money where your mouth is. I dropped Facebook almost a year ago.
All people should try to live conscientiously and responsibly, and that includes while they're trying to make money. It's a rather shocking argument to suggest that scruples go out the door once money is involved. That's precisely the problem.
L'Osservatore, including people of various genders isn't a "social justice experiment." It's equality, liberty, and self-determination. I thought you right-wingers were all about that.... Any person who wants to get shot at to defend the country should be allowed to. The right-wing snowflakes who might get offended can take a hike.
Put your money where your mouth is. I dropped Facebook almost a year ago.
1
L'Osservatore: there was a time when a single Dutch tulip bulb was worth more than a huge estate with land, a mansion, furnishings, etc.
One tulip bulb. Look it up -- tulip fever.
When there is a hysteria like that going on, people lose all sense of rationality and think some trivial object or service is worth 10,000 times what it really is worth.
The real estate market crash of 2008-2013 is an object lesson also.
I don't know when it will happen (if I did, I'd be a megabucks rich investor), but SOMEDAY, everyone will realize that Facebook is a stupid, trivial service that exists only to suck data and information out of gullible fools -- and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
I hope I live long enough to see it.
One tulip bulb. Look it up -- tulip fever.
When there is a hysteria like that going on, people lose all sense of rationality and think some trivial object or service is worth 10,000 times what it really is worth.
The real estate market crash of 2008-2013 is an object lesson also.
I don't know when it will happen (if I did, I'd be a megabucks rich investor), but SOMEDAY, everyone will realize that Facebook is a stupid, trivial service that exists only to suck data and information out of gullible fools -- and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
I hope I live long enough to see it.
1
Why trust Google ?
Who ever decided that the Technocrats
are the Wisest of us all ?
Break up Google now
before it is too late
and the robots come for you.
By the way
has anyone pondered what happens when
Computer Driven Cars get old
and the people who own them cannot
repair the computers but still want to be
driven by the self-driving cars ?
Won't there be more and more crashes
as the computer driven cars
and the computers and programs get older and older ?
Who ever decided that the Technocrats
are the Wisest of us all ?
Break up Google now
before it is too late
and the robots come for you.
By the way
has anyone pondered what happens when
Computer Driven Cars get old
and the people who own them cannot
repair the computers but still want to be
driven by the self-driving cars ?
Won't there be more and more crashes
as the computer driven cars
and the computers and programs get older and older ?
19
I am left to wonder how the weak ideas inspired the kitschy layout, mimicking bad poetry. Is this your idea of low tech?
I suspekt these cars will nit be owned, but used on a oer ride basis.
One of the few articles I've seen that gets it right.
The problem is not what the Google Manifesto writer and his GamerGate crowd would have us believe: that their "ideological equality"/freedom of speech is oppressed by a corporate culture that prevents them from holding forth at work about theories of how women and minority coworkers' biological traits make them self-marginalizng.
The problem is that this implicitly supremacist ideology is so pervasive in tech in those companies that control our information flow and collect information about us. Yes, many do even argue against women's franchise (i.e. right to vote). Many of these young tech males are the graduates of years of immersion in violent, misogynistic and stereotyped video gaming, and a great many have graduated from being GamerGaters (gaming community denizens who cyberbully and threaten feminists in gaming) to being professionals in mainline companies like Google who manage and handle our information and shape our online discourse.
It's really nice to see an article that gets the primary problem with the Google Manifesto, its biological theories of inadequacy and its implicitly supremacist demands for the right to conduct "debate" within the company over the fitness of their women coworkers.
Yes, there is a serious problem here. I'm glad to see an article in a major news outlet that gets the nature of that problem.
The problem is not what the Google Manifesto writer and his GamerGate crowd would have us believe: that their "ideological equality"/freedom of speech is oppressed by a corporate culture that prevents them from holding forth at work about theories of how women and minority coworkers' biological traits make them self-marginalizng.
The problem is that this implicitly supremacist ideology is so pervasive in tech in those companies that control our information flow and collect information about us. Yes, many do even argue against women's franchise (i.e. right to vote). Many of these young tech males are the graduates of years of immersion in violent, misogynistic and stereotyped video gaming, and a great many have graduated from being GamerGaters (gaming community denizens who cyberbully and threaten feminists in gaming) to being professionals in mainline companies like Google who manage and handle our information and shape our online discourse.
It's really nice to see an article that gets the primary problem with the Google Manifesto, its biological theories of inadequacy and its implicitly supremacist demands for the right to conduct "debate" within the company over the fitness of their women coworkers.
Yes, there is a serious problem here. I'm glad to see an article in a major news outlet that gets the nature of that problem.
102
You haven't read the Google memo; nor, it would seem, has Jonathan Taplin. Before you can credibly criticize it, you need to get straight what it actually says, not what the headlines say it says. You can get some help here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-err...
Why are people still using Google as a search engine. I switched to DuckDuckGo. It works just as well as the G. Plus less spam in my mail box.
40
Spam? How on Earth do you get spam from using Google? I have never received one bit, including my gmail account, and my use is probably 100x average. That's definitely an operator error on your part, not anything to do with Google.
1
Living here and now in the real world I am quite pleased to be able to read my friends' posts on FB about how things are going at the 2017 World Hang Gliding Championship in Brasilia. I follow the race in real time (25 minute delay to avoid cheating) on my computer via the Flymaster web site: https://lt.flymaster.net/bs.php?grp=2040# (they produce the GPS instruments that the pilots where so that we can see where they are).
I'm purchasing bicycle parts via Amazon and other retailers as well as from my local bike shops, and enjoy having a much wider range of selection. I laugh at the silly ads that follow me around the web, for parts that I've already purchased. Can't they fix that?
I do my searches on Bing, which seems to be fine, and check out mountain bike trail maps on Google maps, as well as on local map sites. I keep track of my rides on Strava, so it knows where I've been and how well I'm doing (lots of personal bests).
I use Google Translate to go from Spanish and Portuguese to English so that I can follow non English writers in Brazil.
I've got 14 magazine/newspaper icons on my desktop and subscribe to the NY Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, and the Atlantic.
So far so good.
Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
I'm purchasing bicycle parts via Amazon and other retailers as well as from my local bike shops, and enjoy having a much wider range of selection. I laugh at the silly ads that follow me around the web, for parts that I've already purchased. Can't they fix that?
I do my searches on Bing, which seems to be fine, and check out mountain bike trail maps on Google maps, as well as on local map sites. I keep track of my rides on Strava, so it knows where I've been and how well I'm doing (lots of personal bests).
I use Google Translate to go from Spanish and Portuguese to English so that I can follow non English writers in Brazil.
I've got 14 magazine/newspaper icons on my desktop and subscribe to the NY Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, and the Atlantic.
So far so good.
Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
8
Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.
John Acton
John Acton
12
the problem here is not just the brogrammer culture but also the fact that the government cant enforce change without exhibiting gross discrimination against males seeking to be programmers. It starts at the high school and university levels that see the same 80-20 mix of men and women. the government is forcing google to get a 50-50 mix out of the 80-20 mix that they created. this means less overall programmers since 75% of male tech graduates will have to be rejected and become barista's at starbucks. then you will have the 20% of males to match up with the 20% of females that get those tech degrees. this will create a severe shortage of programmers.
4
Wrong on the sweeping generalization about high school and college enrollments. (Use your favorite search engine to research enrollments -- it's more complex than 80-20, and arguably in flux.) Also wrong on "the government" forcing 50-50 on Google.
4
@JimBissell, you are right that rejecting an entire gender of tech workers would cause a severe shortage of programmers. That happened to the UK starting in the late 1970s. The IT industry set out to transform itself from a workforce of mostly women to one of men. But after pushing the women out, they couldn't find enough men to replace them and the UK lost their competitive edge and never regained it. https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/beta/exhibit/ARmIoOoP
And BTW, the government is not forcing Google to be 50/50 men & women. The DoL lawsuit says that after examining 21,000 Google salaries they found that women were being paid less than men by 7 standard deviations. 2 standard deviations is considered not a random change and large enough for an investigation, making 7 an extreme amount of discrimination.
And BTW, the government is not forcing Google to be 50/50 men & women. The DoL lawsuit says that after examining 21,000 Google salaries they found that women were being paid less than men by 7 standard deviations. 2 standard deviations is considered not a random change and large enough for an investigation, making 7 an extreme amount of discrimination.
1
Exactly. To go after Google for the diversity problems arising from women's self-selection out of tech is to go after the wrong target. Google is also not responsible for the bro culture, which has long been a nasty undercurrent in every industry. There's a subspecies of male that is sick. Blaming Google for it won't do any good.
People need to pay more attention to children, not corporations. Both girls and boys need to have the expectation that women are just as likely to be great programmers / executives / whatever.
People need to pay more attention to children, not corporations. Both girls and boys need to have the expectation that women are just as likely to be great programmers / executives / whatever.
Our political system of "self-governance" is not showing itself to be organizationally and ethically robust enough to resist the concentration of money and power in order to guide and regulate the use of information. Nor, I fear, can it comprehend, much less address, the coming AI takeover of human interaction. Perhaps the ravages of climate change (which our political system seems also unable to address) on the species will be Mother Nature's way of preserving some life forms on the planet. Ours won't be one of them. Oh, there may be a few .01%ers and their minions who achieve escape velocity and form a short-lived colony on another platform, but what kind of life will that be? Cheers!
10
Maybe the Reapers of Mass Effect fame are waiting to restore the balance...
It’s hard to comment here because this editorial muddles many disparate topics, from privacy to corporate monopoly to gender inequality. All of these are important topics deserving of discussion but not (necessarily) related so it is hard to tell what we are to take from this. However, like anyone I was drawn to it by the headline: “Google Doesn’t Want What’s Best for Us.”
Really? [sarcasm] A for-profit corporation is more concerned with profitability than individual rights or gender differences? 100 years ago companies hired small children to sweep carcinogens out of their smokestacks and fix intricate machinery until they had no fingers left. In more recent history, financial companies have caused countless customers to lose their homes and life savings. These are the unfortunate byproduct of capitalism, but at least—by comparison—the “crimes” perpetrated by Google and Facebook show how much our society had advanced overall. And in all of these cases it was ultimately government oversight that led to changes that helped protect the average citizen.
So let’s be more outraged that women are far more underrepresented in Congress (19%), state legislatures (25%) and the Presidency (0%) than they are at Google (31%)—and unlike STEM I’ve never heard an argument that women are in any way less suited for government jobs than men. In fact, the recent actions of Senators Collins and Murkowski show that they can be our bravest leaders. Let’s have more of them.
Really? [sarcasm] A for-profit corporation is more concerned with profitability than individual rights or gender differences? 100 years ago companies hired small children to sweep carcinogens out of their smokestacks and fix intricate machinery until they had no fingers left. In more recent history, financial companies have caused countless customers to lose their homes and life savings. These are the unfortunate byproduct of capitalism, but at least—by comparison—the “crimes” perpetrated by Google and Facebook show how much our society had advanced overall. And in all of these cases it was ultimately government oversight that led to changes that helped protect the average citizen.
So let’s be more outraged that women are far more underrepresented in Congress (19%), state legislatures (25%) and the Presidency (0%) than they are at Google (31%)—and unlike STEM I’ve never heard an argument that women are in any way less suited for government jobs than men. In fact, the recent actions of Senators Collins and Murkowski show that they can be our bravest leaders. Let’s have more of them.
275
Very intelligent comments but oops! women don't vote for women, or else we would already have parity in government. Women can and do vote for the best candidates. Women outvote men by a good margin. Women are women's worst enemy it seems, or certainly women sticking together better is much lower hanging fruit that changing millennia of men's domination by getting men to give it up. Can I coin a new phrase? "Internalized sexism" whereby women DO NOT support other women and in fact act in a sexist way towards each other. As a gay man, I know all about "internalized homophobia" whereby sometimes I have strong feelings against gays because I am ashamed to be one myself. Could women be falling into this same trap? Why isn't anyone talking about this? Before you all flame me, ask 100 women if they'd rather have a male boss or female boss then get back to me.
Ten thousand years of sexism pretty much worldwide (with some exceptions among, for example, some Native American groups), has brought about an internalization of it by many women. So first, we have to raise women's consciousness. Then steps can happen. But all along the way, women experience battering and oppression by men, daily anger in remarks and sexist exploitation, so there is great risk. Many women fear to step outside the roles they've been shoved into. Most men lack awareness of this, or worse, enjoy pushing women down. This is my personal experience of almost 70 years. Men also need to raise consciousness. The problem is, they have no reason to, since they think they benefit from this arrangement, or dismiss the existence of a problem. Change won't really happen until men also see how this hurts them.
Would I rather have a male or female boss? I'd rather have a boss who is aware, decent, interested in working through problems rather than blaming and manipulating. Someone who values employees as the most important asset to a company or institution. It's not Jeff Bezos, that's for sure, with his horrid work culture at Amazon. Your question is right, but it shows you need to read more, Malcolm. Women are aware of the pressure from society to internalize the oppression. We all know we have to work twice as hard for less pay, while also raising a family and cleaning the house. It's just that for some, to buck that system is too great a risk.
Would I rather have a male or female boss? I'd rather have a boss who is aware, decent, interested in working through problems rather than blaming and manipulating. Someone who values employees as the most important asset to a company or institution. It's not Jeff Bezos, that's for sure, with his horrid work culture at Amazon. Your question is right, but it shows you need to read more, Malcolm. Women are aware of the pressure from society to internalize the oppression. We all know we have to work twice as hard for less pay, while also raising a family and cleaning the house. It's just that for some, to buck that system is too great a risk.
1
@Malcom. You've put a spotlight on the gorilla in the room and this was one of the factors that led to the depressing failure of the Equal Rights Ammendment in the 1970s.
We will never know how many women at Google are cringing at the thought of perfect parity in Google's programming ranks.
We will never know how many women at Google are cringing at the thought of perfect parity in Google's programming ranks.
Google doesn't want what's best for us because Google doesn't know what's best for us. It would be much more disturbing if the opposite were true. But then, we don't know what's best for us, so we can't expect Google, Amazon or Facebook to solve our problems. Too bad. That would be so easy.
35
We often forget that regulations equal protection. They protect us from the overreach of our capitalist system. Ma Bell once controlled 90% of our lives because they had a monopoly on landline phones. Eventually the government recognized that competition was much more healthy for our country and they broke up Ma Bell. I often wonder if we would have cell phones today had Ma Bell been allowed to remain intact.
Google, Facebook, and Amazon are all great ideas. Initially their monopoly on the technology they created made sense. But now they've reached that point where they've become too powerful and it's time to act. Amazon should be broken up but Facebook and Google just need a dose of regulation and competition to ease their control over our daily lives.
Even Microsoft recognized that Apple made them better. The competition forced both companies to come out with products that make our lives better.
Our laws simply haven't kept up with our technology. A certain party that believes government is evil has a lot to blame for that. I'm glad that the EU is starting to push back.
I do commend Google for handling this employee divisively. A good reminder that employees need to take care that if they use company tools to express biased ideas that may create a hostile work environment there will be consequences. Free speech doesn't mean that you don't have to worry about the consequences of that speech.
Google, Facebook, and Amazon are all great ideas. Initially their monopoly on the technology they created made sense. But now they've reached that point where they've become too powerful and it's time to act. Amazon should be broken up but Facebook and Google just need a dose of regulation and competition to ease their control over our daily lives.
Even Microsoft recognized that Apple made them better. The competition forced both companies to come out with products that make our lives better.
Our laws simply haven't kept up with our technology. A certain party that believes government is evil has a lot to blame for that. I'm glad that the EU is starting to push back.
I do commend Google for handling this employee divisively. A good reminder that employees need to take care that if they use company tools to express biased ideas that may create a hostile work environment there will be consequences. Free speech doesn't mean that you don't have to worry about the consequences of that speech.
60
One major problem with this: Amazon may be increasingly powerful, but they are far from a monopoly. There are a plethora of online retailers; most still do their own fulfillment. Wal-Mart, the comparable "monopoly" of brick and mortar retail, is still stiff competition for Amazon, and itself was never a true monopoly of the retail space. AWS faces competition from Azure. "The most successful" is not a synonym for "monopoly," and, at least in Amazon's case, it is still rapidly innovating (re: your cell phones example), so let it run for now.
1
Ironically, because Ma Bell was a monopoly, they had to supply rural areas with the same level of service given to populated areas. Now that we allow "competition" in cell phone and internet service, vast areas of the country have no cel or internet service (or only one provider) which excludes millions of Americans from the fastest growing industries in the U.S.
"Handling this employee divisively" is too rich a Freudian typo! Kudos!
1
Sad and maddening that the author had an opportunity - and a headline - to get serious about anti-trust, privacy, and the threat to civil society, but instead spent half of the article on the gender of programmers and quoting a famous Valley titan's libertarian posts.
Then there's the practically circular reference to a quip in a New Yorker article. That's one of the great things about Google: in a matter of seconds you can find a quote to dump into your article when you don't have the ideas and discipline to develop a sound argument.
Then there's the practically circular reference to a quip in a New Yorker article. That's one of the great things about Google: in a matter of seconds you can find a quote to dump into your article when you don't have the ideas and discipline to develop a sound argument.
38
Sad that evidently you don't understand that libertarian morés and grossly imbalanced gender proportions play key roles in *why* we have serious problems with privacy, antitrust issues, and the threats that they pose to civil society.
Brogrammer culture, itself very much an outgrowth of the venture capital community's fetishization of dominance as the superior value in all things, is built, from top to bottom, around contempt for and usually active attack of genuinely open protocols, collaborative management and ownership structures, and what they now call, usually in tones of utter loathing, "lifestyle companies" designed to be viable at anything less than cancerous rates of continual growth.
Gender dynamics aren't a non-sequitur in discussions of corporate monopolistic behavior. They're root and branch of how and why they occur.
Brogrammer culture, itself very much an outgrowth of the venture capital community's fetishization of dominance as the superior value in all things, is built, from top to bottom, around contempt for and usually active attack of genuinely open protocols, collaborative management and ownership structures, and what they now call, usually in tones of utter loathing, "lifestyle companies" designed to be viable at anything less than cancerous rates of continual growth.
Gender dynamics aren't a non-sequitur in discussions of corporate monopolistic behavior. They're root and branch of how and why they occur.
18
@Mr. Wright - This is all predicated on the notion that brogrammer culture is dominant throughout the tech industry. It is not. It is a loathsome undercurrent from a subspecies of male that isn't the norm. In my two decades as a programmer, I have yet to encounter people behaving in this way.
Male-dominant behavior is a cause of much trouble in the world, but it isn't the necessary and sufficient condition for a company to aggressively seek a monopoly. Capitalism by nature concentrates wealth in the hands of a single "winner." The prevalence of sociopaths among top management - male or female - also likely contributes. So, yes, gender diversity might be relevant to the discussion of monopolies in the sense that women might be a check on male dominant behavior (itself a sexist comment, assuming women wouldn't take part in a culture of dominance), but to consider it alone is to point to one tree in the forest and say, "so that's why I smell sap!" Gender diversity is important. A company's quest for market share, success, and innovation does not have a gender.
Male-dominant behavior is a cause of much trouble in the world, but it isn't the necessary and sufficient condition for a company to aggressively seek a monopoly. Capitalism by nature concentrates wealth in the hands of a single "winner." The prevalence of sociopaths among top management - male or female - also likely contributes. So, yes, gender diversity might be relevant to the discussion of monopolies in the sense that women might be a check on male dominant behavior (itself a sexist comment, assuming women wouldn't take part in a culture of dominance), but to consider it alone is to point to one tree in the forest and say, "so that's why I smell sap!" Gender diversity is important. A company's quest for market share, success, and innovation does not have a gender.
2
The author has been well-indoctrinated by our society's leadership: Why would he even contemplate addressing antitrust, privacy and business threats to civil society?!
2
At age sixty now, and for a number of years, I've been socializing (at the local dog park) with many twenty- and thirty-somethings. I've been struck by two things. First, many, really most, of them are totally compulsive about their smartphones. A very large part of their cognitive and social/interactive lives are about that little screen. Group-think is rampant. To an outside observer it's obviously not healthy. And second, they've completely lost the natural distaste for huge, faceless corporations. In fact, they love them; especially the "faceless"-ness.
Also obviously not healthy.
My point being that it's very hard to save people from themselves.
Oddly, the dog park itself suggests one sort of remedy. Local, social, easy interaction. People entertaining, informing, occasionally conflicting and sometimes supporting each other in the same way people always did. Until around 2010.
Also obviously not healthy.
My point being that it's very hard to save people from themselves.
Oddly, the dog park itself suggests one sort of remedy. Local, social, easy interaction. People entertaining, informing, occasionally conflicting and sometimes supporting each other in the same way people always did. Until around 2010.
262
Laurence, your comment reflects the usual canard about "those darn kids always on their phones"; but as a young person I find it the opposite. Young people are more social and connected than ever, and it's the baby boomer generation and older who are hooked up to their smartphones like life support, reloading their Facebook pages to stalk their relatives ad nauseam.
We have integrated phones into our lives to make living our lives easier. We go to the park, we play sports, and we use the internet to establish our groups. We also can't afford a lot of the dainty old social pursuits that previous generations used to. Take a week off our job to go on a road trip? "jobs for life" don't exist for young people anymore- we're easily replaceable. We need to make rent and, you know, buy avocado toast apparently.
We have integrated phones into our lives to make living our lives easier. We go to the park, we play sports, and we use the internet to establish our groups. We also can't afford a lot of the dainty old social pursuits that previous generations used to. Take a week off our job to go on a road trip? "jobs for life" don't exist for young people anymore- we're easily replaceable. We need to make rent and, you know, buy avocado toast apparently.
there used to be a word for a mass of willing and compliant, easily-led young people happy to engage with faceless corporations
cannonfodder.
cannonfodder.
2
Those phones let them know people in Poland or Peoria equally as friends. Not what we're used to, but very goid.
This article leaves out the very important and intertwined geopolitical issues freighting the global "surveillance capitalism" economy. Now maybe more readers will understand not only European resistance to allowing Google, Facebook and Amazon etc.. unfettered access to their markets and people but China's as well. Whereas the Europeans outwardly at least focus on the privacy/monopoly issues the Chinese couple the privacy/monopoly concerns with very legitimate national security concerns regarding the scope and influence of these companies and their relationship with the US government (see Snowden). Not surprisingly China is one of the only countries in the world (inlcuding to a lesser extent Russia) that have developed social media companies of their own that can compete with the US behemoths. Google in 2016-2017 accounted for less than 2% of the Chinese search market Baidu the Chinese search engine company accounted for 80% while ShenMa, 360 Search and Sogou accounted for most of the rest. The continued growth and dominance of these companies and their relationships with geopolitics are more complex than most people realise.
11
Remember how long it took Amazon to start collecting state sales taxes? Can you imagine Macys or JC Penney not collecting sales tax in states which by law require it? How can governments ignore something like this. The European initiative on private info / search engines is decades too late but at least they have done something. I understand 90% market share in the first 3-4 years of a brand new business but has it not been dozen years now of this incredible market domination for Google?
26
Neither Amazon nor any other business has a legal obligation to collect sales tax in states they don't have a physical presence in.
5
Companies like Google go for the throat if not opposed. Just remember the German street view debacle. Living in the US and simply not having the time to google for hours I can't recall whether Google informed the German government about its intention to shoot SV imagery of cities and allowing proper time for publication and discussion. I have no doubt, however, that corporations like Google strive to maximize profit and, therefore, capture it all, information they can then dole out - for money, and plenty of it - to governments, police, the military, own and foreign, even hostile, the mafia, private detectives and churches, to name only those which came to my mind in a second. If technically possible Google would not just image the street, the houses including their backyards, peek into bedrooms, tape people having sex and post which rubber brand is the most used in a given neighborhood. Capitalism of the US variety knows few boundaries; all that counts is the money to be made and the rise of stocks.
What would happen if everyone who has a facebook account decides to not access it for 24 hours? Personally, I can't participate in this experiment because i do not have a facebook account. just wondering how it would affect the company.
16
They're tracking you even when you're logged out. The Obama administration was completely asleep at the wheel. They were cultivating influence with the foxes instead of protecting the sheep. Oh, that's right, Net Neutrality, I've just clapped for a couple seconds. And which firms were so intensely lobbying for that? Hmmmm....
7
I don't go to Facebook either. Don't have the time for this rubbish.
1
Actually google is a pretty good place to work. Most of its employees are not fans of Peter Thiel and would prefer to have more diversity of sexes at work. They would prefer not to work for Jeff Bezos and Amazon, but are likely to read his Washington Post and think for example that health care is a human right. States with lots of google employees are unlikely to support health policies that would have lots of us die at 60.
125
Expire at 60? Well better than in the movie "Logan's Run". People half that age were expendable.
1
As someone who lives in the Valley and worked at Stanford (the incubator of the Valley), I can tell you Thiel is not highly regarded here. He is considered an odd ball. He is "cultivated" for financial gifts to NPOs and investments in start-ups, but he is NOT respected nor well-liked.
I am so tired of outsiders PROJECTING their conclusions about Silicon Valley w/o knowing what they're talking about!
I am so tired of outsiders PROJECTING their conclusions about Silicon Valley w/o knowing what they're talking about!
2
Underprepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields is an important topics that merits a lot of discussion. So are issues of privacy in our internet era. But there is something wrong with an article on the dangers posed by Google when the names of the biggest villains mentioned are Thiel and Bezos.
21
"Underprepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields is an important topics that merits a lot of discussion."
Good luck with that. The NY Times seems to regularly report on the relative success achieved by graduating classes at schools like Stanford. Try and pry out details on the distribution of students in the engineering curriculums by race or sex - you won't find them.
So here's a progressive solution that California would probably jump at. Have Stanford, UCB, CalTech, USC, UCLA, SJSU and UCSD just award undergraduate engineering degrees to to a specified percentage of African American, Hispanic/Latin-X/Chicano/Spanish, females and transgendered students who are receiving any other undergrad degree. The students would be chosen by lottery. It's that simple.
Then pass laws stating the companies driving the powerhouse economy in California must hire these students in a certain proportion to other new hires. The penalty for not doing so would be a refusal to zone any sort of expansion and crack 'em with a, oh, $100B fine on an annual basis.
All "underrepresentation" issues resolved!
Good luck with that. The NY Times seems to regularly report on the relative success achieved by graduating classes at schools like Stanford. Try and pry out details on the distribution of students in the engineering curriculums by race or sex - you won't find them.
So here's a progressive solution that California would probably jump at. Have Stanford, UCB, CalTech, USC, UCLA, SJSU and UCSD just award undergraduate engineering degrees to to a specified percentage of African American, Hispanic/Latin-X/Chicano/Spanish, females and transgendered students who are receiving any other undergrad degree. The students would be chosen by lottery. It's that simple.
Then pass laws stating the companies driving the powerhouse economy in California must hire these students in a certain proportion to other new hires. The penalty for not doing so would be a refusal to zone any sort of expansion and crack 'em with a, oh, $100B fine on an annual basis.
All "underrepresentation" issues resolved!
It has been obvious for a great many years that google doesn't want what's best for us. And amazon too. Nor has the rest of the online, cable and cell phone industry. Our privacy doesn't exist any more. Your devices are listening in you're bed room.
These companies don't serve us, they sell our information to the government and then the highest bidder. I feel compromised just reading news online and posting this.
These companies don't serve us, they sell our information to the government and then the highest bidder. I feel compromised just reading news online and posting this.
37
You are (being compromised). Each and every time you send email, that's the case. How do escape? Get off-line, put your cell-phone in the freezer, live like a hermit. But who wants to do that? Sad fact is that humans are being harvested, just like unfortunate animals that end up on peoples' dinner tables.
Google's search algorithm favors "authoritative" sources and thus seems implicitly stacked against "new" and "challenging" approaches.
7
I'm ok with Google not connecting to lunacy sights that say no planes crashed into the WTC or no children were gunned down at Sandy Hook. Are these the new and challenging approaches you're talking about?
3
Google is a filter. Keep that in mind.
Your results do not show what you asked for, but WHAT GOOGLE DECIDES TO SHOW YOU.
That should really scare you.
Your results do not show what you asked for, but WHAT GOOGLE DECIDES TO SHOW YOU.
That should really scare you.
3
It's fun to paint the entire valley as Peter Thiel's libertarian-land. But the companies you're actually criticizing - Google and Facebook - are incredibly liberal and what some would call "PC", despite your poorly supported claims of "extreme" "internal misogynistic 'brogrammer' rhetoric". Maybe that's how you acted when you were in the financial industry, but I don't see why you're assuming that's how the tech industry acts.
61
Yes, "liberal" and "progressive". Those are the birds to slap onto anything you don't want too much sunlight on. "Move on now, nothing to see here, just some wonderful 'liberals' who couldn't possibly be doing anything you wouldn't love unconditionally."
5
Criticize liberals and progressives all you want. I'm not putting a label on anyone to protect them. But it's inaccurate and ignorant of reality to portray the entire valley as filled with Peter Thiel thought-clones.
2
The biggest players in the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley also engaged for years in illegal employment agreements to restrain wages (their "anti-poaching" game).
And you think they are bastions of progressivism or "sweetness and light"?
Think again.
And you think they are bastions of progressivism or "sweetness and light"?
Think again.
1
I read Mr. Damore's sophomoric outburst. Citing to Wikipedia articles which quote single questionable "studies" as evidence of scientific consensus? Really? This guy went to Harvard?
Forget the subject matter of Mr. Damore's attempted philosophical exercise on company time. I'm sure any company engaged in scientific research would want to seriously consider letting go of employees responsible for such SHODDY research and poor reasoning.
Mr. Damore's rant is on par with a high school writing project. That's reason enough to send him on his way. He's much more qualified to represent the alt-right, where actual science doesn't matter.
Forget the subject matter of Mr. Damore's attempted philosophical exercise on company time. I'm sure any company engaged in scientific research would want to seriously consider letting go of employees responsible for such SHODDY research and poor reasoning.
Mr. Damore's rant is on par with a high school writing project. That's reason enough to send him on his way. He's much more qualified to represent the alt-right, where actual science doesn't matter.
142
@rbjd, who wrote: "I read Mr. Damore's sophomoric outburst. Citing to Wikipedia articles which quote single questionable "studies" as evidence of scientific consensus? Really? This guy went to Harvard?"
He had misleading information on his Linkedin page that he had a PhD from Harvard. BusinessInsider caught it and he has since removed it from his profile.
But at my school (not Harvard), we were never allowed to use Wikipedia. It's not about Harvard or not-Harvard. It's about millennial online troll cultures where ideologies based on pseudoscience, fake controversies and conspiracy theories spread. That's the reactionary political culture Damore's writing originates from.
He had misleading information on his Linkedin page that he had a PhD from Harvard. BusinessInsider caught it and he has since removed it from his profile.
But at my school (not Harvard), we were never allowed to use Wikipedia. It's not about Harvard or not-Harvard. It's about millennial online troll cultures where ideologies based on pseudoscience, fake controversies and conspiracy theories spread. That's the reactionary political culture Damore's writing originates from.
14
@rbjd I would like to know which of Mr. Damore's references were incorrect, specifically.
I agree - although in my opinion, the use of Wikipedia as a source is the least of it. It was two poorly made arguments.
First, he claimed that Google has a culture of shaming that prevents contrarian views from being heard. This is a serious charge at a company that claims to value vigorous debate and provides online forums for employees to do just that - he but offers no evidence of this, not even a personal anecdote of an incident where he felt shamed and afraid to speak.
What's more, his primary thesis - that Google cannot reach 50/50 parity without engaging in illegal gender discrimination against men - was not made effectively. The way to make that point is with a quantitative argument based on Google's hiring and turnover rates, the number of experienced women seeking jobs within the tech industry, the number of women entering the field, Google's quality bar (e.g., 'we hire the top 5% of the field..') and the rate that Google job offers are accepted. If the numbers worked out, it would have been a far more effective argument than one that applies population-level averages to a small group of people.
If he had written two short memos, one focused on his claims certain opinions were being shamed at Google, and one quantitatively analyzing Google's diversity goals, the outcome of this incident would have been quite different.
First, he claimed that Google has a culture of shaming that prevents contrarian views from being heard. This is a serious charge at a company that claims to value vigorous debate and provides online forums for employees to do just that - he but offers no evidence of this, not even a personal anecdote of an incident where he felt shamed and afraid to speak.
What's more, his primary thesis - that Google cannot reach 50/50 parity without engaging in illegal gender discrimination against men - was not made effectively. The way to make that point is with a quantitative argument based on Google's hiring and turnover rates, the number of experienced women seeking jobs within the tech industry, the number of women entering the field, Google's quality bar (e.g., 'we hire the top 5% of the field..') and the rate that Google job offers are accepted. If the numbers worked out, it would have been a far more effective argument than one that applies population-level averages to a small group of people.
If he had written two short memos, one focused on his claims certain opinions were being shamed at Google, and one quantitatively analyzing Google's diversity goals, the outcome of this incident would have been quite different.
2
This anything goes when it comes to business attitude will lead to a very violent world. Materialism is not the road to personal peace. Do some good, you will leave this world richer.
19
This anything goes when it comes to business attitude has led to a very violent world. Materialism has not the road to personal peace since it was first condemned thousands of years ago by the Buddha and other prophets.
8
Let us not forget to mention that we have ceded control of our students' data to Google at an unprecedented rate. We have thrown our childrens' future under the Google "bus" to save pennies in tech costs. Same on us.
22
I agree, but many people without children in school might not know the mechanism -- Google's "Chromebooks" -- free netbook-type laptop computers hooked into Google Chrome browser software, that are given to school districts cheaply or for free, but with the full knowledge that in accepting these netbooks, the schools are handing over immense access to student browsing data to the Google Empire.
And this is the company whose motto once was "don't be evil".
And this is the company whose motto once was "don't be evil".
5
Google, like all corporations and human organizations, is not perfect. Certain issues like privacy need careful attention and certain Google practices deserve criticism.
However, this editorial is a confused hit job. Google is not "bro" culture and the reasons for underrepresentation of women and minorities in tech are much broader and deeper. Google's educational outreach is attempting to address some of these issues, for example.
The author needs to take a deep breath and separate the issues. We need more clarity, not less, on the way to effective solutions.
However, this editorial is a confused hit job. Google is not "bro" culture and the reasons for underrepresentation of women and minorities in tech are much broader and deeper. Google's educational outreach is attempting to address some of these issues, for example.
The author needs to take a deep breath and separate the issues. We need more clarity, not less, on the way to effective solutions.
67
>>Google is not "bro" culture
I've worked there: Yes, it is. The reality is the Bros still dominate, and also note that they review female job performance; imagine what that D'Amato fool wrote about women and how many suffered because he thinks they are all too empathetic and neurotic and unable to handle stress.
Brilliant, highly-educated, and a fool: I've met a lot of them.
I've worked there: Yes, it is. The reality is the Bros still dominate, and also note that they review female job performance; imagine what that D'Amato fool wrote about women and how many suffered because he thinks they are all too empathetic and neurotic and unable to handle stress.
Brilliant, highly-educated, and a fool: I've met a lot of them.
5
To use government to steer capitalism to create humanities greatest possible happiness should be the goal of every progressive, but capitalism cannot be expected to steer itself to anything but the "happiness" of the most successful, and it is futile to hold them accountable to the general good with anything but enlightened government regulation.
The perfect balance of government and corporate power is as impossible as it is subjective, but neo-libertarians calling for unfettered capitalism are devoid of evidence that such a system can ever end well for humanity as a whole.
The perfect balance of government and corporate power is as impossible as it is subjective, but neo-libertarians calling for unfettered capitalism are devoid of evidence that such a system can ever end well for humanity as a whole.
156
You need to check the history of socialism, which has always and everywhere led to poverty and tyranny wherever it has been tried over the last 100 years, in more than 50 countries. Then, look at the history of capitalism, which has increased wealth and freedom wherever it has been tried over the last 2000 years.
4
I have looked at the history of socialism and capitalism and come to the conclusion that it is simplistic ideology to say it is a choice of one or the other. That is the big libertarian lie I'm trying to defuse. The best governments are hybrids of the two- a dynamic balance very difficult to sustain or to even determine the ideal- that is, the perfect socialistic-capitalistic blend.
In my opinion, the U.S. has let corporate power excessively dominate government in a dangerous way. Corporate influence is disorganized without any central planning and we seem to be spinning out of control. Instead of using their influence in such a haphazard manner we'd be better served if they were organized into some kind of House of Lords and functioned out in the open and collectively.
In my opinion, the U.S. has let corporate power excessively dominate government in a dangerous way. Corporate influence is disorganized without any central planning and we seem to be spinning out of control. Instead of using their influence in such a haphazard manner we'd be better served if they were organized into some kind of House of Lords and functioned out in the open and collectively.
2
"To use government to steer capitalism to create humanities greatest possible happiness should be the goal of every progressive"
That sounds Orwellian in the extreme, even missing the apostrophe.
That sounds Orwellian in the extreme, even missing the apostrophe.
2
Finally, also the U.S. society seems to wake up to a threat that the E.U. has seen coming long ago already. I could not agree more with the author here. Let's not allow these power hungry disruptors to silently take away our privacy, dignity and freedom.
206
The Trump administration is doing its best to kill net neutrality and sell citizen's privacy rights down the river. Our government has done a terrible job protecting us under Clinto, Bush II and Obama, but the Trump administration is making things much worse.
3