Google's Ideological Echo Chamber *Updated*

As you probably saw this morning with a headline along the lines of “Google Anti-Diversity Memo” or something similar, someone at Google wrote a 10-page piece that challenges the status quo regarding the gender gap. The actual title is “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” and by the backlash regarding its publishing, it is spot on. I highly recommend reading the full ten pages you can find here, but I am going to include some of the most insightful points, including the TL;DR that he provided.


Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.


This is how it starts off, which hits the nail on the head regarding the response it received, and is a testament to how prevalent the ideological echo chamber is in the media as well.

TL:DR

• Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
• This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
• The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
• Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
• Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
• Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.


The following are points I think are worth expanding on.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on4, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.


He later gives non-bias explanations for the gender gap, and evolutionary differences between men and women.

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
• Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5
• A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
• Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
• Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
• Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology7 that can irreparably harm Google.

7 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

This might be the most important part of his piece, and the scariest part of the whole situation. In many ways, we are in an era of socially-enforced leftist-McCarthyism, which is very very dangerous.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner10. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.


This has some interesting wording human inclinations on who we protect. It is arguable that programs meant to help only one gender are in fact sexist in themselves because they are inferring them as weaker and needing help.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

• As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

• Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
• In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
• Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.


This last point stuck home with me as I am currently starting at a new University in a few weeks in part to how hostile the culture was at my previous institution to those not on the far-left.

Confront Google’s biases.

• I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
• I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

• These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

• Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
• There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.


It is funny how susceptible human nature is to overcorrection. Just 20-40 years ago there was an echo chamber of only white guys, which is a problem, and didn’t have the openness for diversity. Now we are the opposite end of the spectrum, and now it is structural and intentional.
After stating all of his points, he does recognize where he can be wrong.

2 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

I thought the wording was great, he tried to open a discussion in a space in which he thought there was no room for, was shut down by Google, and misrepresented by multiple media outlets, but then again, I am susceptible to bias as well. One huge point that cannot be understated, is how pervasive the echo chamber is at Google after this getting so much flack. There is certainly a lot to discuss here monkeys, so I will leave you too it.

UPDATE:


James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." A Google representative didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Mr. Damore was trying to open discussion, and Google's response is clear: Think like us, or you will be fired.

Above in my post, I mention a phrase which I want to restate and call for more discussion on which no one has mentioned: socially-enforced leftist-McCarthyism. It started in classrooms, now it is in boardrooms, how long until it moves into courtrooms?

Mod Note (Andy): top 50 posts of 2017, this one ranks #43 (based on # of silver bananas)

 

I'm pretty surprised at the response this memo is getting from Google, although I also admit I have a relatively right wing perspective. Whether or not you agree with the writer's arguments, he was respectful in trying to open up a dialogue, and was promptly shut down and shamed, almost proving the point of business right wing policies being discriminated against. Interested to hear everyone else's thoughts. (Any left-leaners that want to perhaps make a counter argument that isn't a straight up "No."?)

 
Controversial

I don't feel like writing an essay to respond to his diatribe so unfortunately I'm just going to say "no." My view is that if he wants to talk about "population level differences" then we should also get to talking about genetic diversity. His essay is a prime example of the Gish Gallop, which, given how stupid Americans tend to be, is exceedingly effective at influencing people.

As a moderate and neither Dem or Rep, my take is that the current climate in America is decisively the result of a higher proportion of retards in the country versus those not. America is far-right as fuck compared with most of the Western world, and a few progressive steps by a black guy was just way too much progress to handle for people who only like to believe that they're intelligent.

Edit: gee, who knew this might get monkey shit on a forum dominated by right-leaning 18-30 year-old males?

Edit 2: I read the whole thing. Monkey shit doesn't lie, the guy had a point.

in it 2 win it
 
As a moderate and neither Dem or Rep, my take is that the current climate in America is decisively the result of a higher proportion of retards in the country versus those not. America is far-right as fuck compared with most of the Western world, and a few progressive steps by a black guy was just way too much progress to handle for people who only like to believe that they're intelligent.

Edit: gee, who knew this might get monkey shit on a forum dominated by right-leaning 18-30 year-old males?

The monkey shit is probably coming from the self-righteousness, not the dissenting opinion as we want responses sharing a viewpoint that differs based on fact and reason.

 

lol this website is definitely not right-leaning by any standards... but yes right wing people are all retards, but obama was a genius and a god hehe nice viewpoints

so you are basically agreeing that it is ok for google employees to be threatening anonymous memo writers with violence for having a different point of view, yet you think other people are extremist?

 

No, I never said any of that you dig bumb idiot. I don't think Obama was a god or even close to a GOAT president, and I don't think it's okay to threaten violence.

I do think that you don't find WSO right-leaning because you are more right-leaning than you're able to acknowledge. I also don't think all right-wing people are retards, just the large majority, and I believe the same thing about leftists. I live in NYC, and would regularly have to dodge Bernie Sanders rallies in 2016 to avoid having my brain melted by the stupidity.

The fact is that both right- and left-leaning opinions tend to be made by idiots, but you hear more anti-right propaganda now because - guess the fuck what - we have a right-wing extremist in the White House. What's missing from America isn't more conservative or liberal ideology, but common sense.

in it 2 win it
 
Dig Bumb Idiot:
lol this website is definitely not right-leaning by any standards...

This website is most definitely right-leaning. I'm personally a conservative and sometimes I feel like Che Guevara here

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 
Kassad:
The current climate in America is decisively the result of a higher proportion of retards in the country versus those not.

America's climate is determined by the earth's positioning around the sun, and fluctuates seasonly. To blame the mentally challenged is just ignorant.

"A man can convince anyone he's somebody else, but never himself."
 
Keyser Söze 123:
Kassad:
The current climate in America is decisively the result of a higher proportion of retards in the country versus those not.
America's climate is determined by the earth's positioning around the sun, and fluctuates seasonly. To blame the mentally challenged is just ignorant.

Best comment of the thread...this guy gets it

 

False, your post was shit on because it's useless, moronic and adds nothing to the discussion. You dropped in to say "Wow, what a moron, Americans are dumb and this a prime example. I could explain to you why you're wrong, but I'm too smart for that."

Post a cogent, intelligent counter-argument to even one of his points and I'm sure any of the more intelligent members of this forum would be happy to debate you. Until then your opinion is meaningless.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."
 

So the gender gap in tech is due to what? The author argues that it's career self-selection and high distributions of males who exceed at math and science. I assume you disagree with that position and attribute gender gap in tech to...discrimination?

Let me ask you, does progressive Europe have a tech gender bias or are about 50% of coders, for example, women?

Array
 

I'll give you this one - I indeed didn't read the full 10 pages this morning, but only the TL;DR posted on the linked site. Having read the whole thing, it takes on a much different tone (one that wasn't espoused by the TL;DR), and I do agree with much more of it.

in it 2 win it
 

The shit is based on your in ability to actually look at data. The perpetuated gender "gaps" sprouted by every douchebag looking for brownie points have been proven to be false.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 
Kassad:
I don't feel like writing an essay to respond to his diatribe so unfortunately I'm just going to say "no." My view is that if he wants to talk about "population level differences" then we should also get to talking about genetic diversity. His essay is a prime example of the Gish Gallop, which, given how stupid Americans tend to be, is exceedingly effective at influencing people.

As a moderate and neither Dem or Rep, my take is that the current climate in America is decisively the result of a higher proportion of retards in the country versus those not. America is far-right as fuck compared with most of the Western world, and a few progressive steps by a black guy was just way too much progress to handle for people who only like to believe that they're intelligent.

Edit: gee, who knew this might get monkey shit on a forum dominated by right-leaning 18-30 year-old males?

Edit 2: I read the whole thing. Monkey shit doesn't lie, the guy had a point.

You complain about monkey shits, you get more monkey shits.

It's a fucking internet forum, if you are really worried about your opinion being undermined by this, then your opinion isn't really that much worth at all.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.
 

I agree with the (I guess we'll call it an) Op Ed's overarching idea about how diversity is being treated in society and business (I would also include education), however I disagree with many of the individual points made. I find that they're distracting from the overarching goal of the piece and may create cause for undue criticism for a topic that needed to be addressed.

To reaffirm the overarching logic, I recently read that Deloitte is doing away with work place racial and gender groups for more inclusive groups that contain every race and gender. I hope this trend continues. Over the past 10 years people have mistakenly defined school, work, and societal ethnic groups as being "Diverse" when in fact they do nothing but create "exclusivity" and "tribalism."

When someone is denied the right to join a club because of their race, skin color, or sex is by definition discriminatory. I find it baffling that when a minority group employees these practices it is somehow seen as "Empowering" or "Diverse." Our goal as people should be to embrace and put aside our differences, not make them so prominent that we surround ourselves with our own biases. I think it would be more empowering / diverse to include other races in your work group and educate them about your culture (open to hear other opinions on this).

Although I disagree with how he went about making his case in the Op Ed, I definitely give this guy props for sending the memo (especially if this guy works in the Google Palo Alto Office). Try talking conservative ideologies at a bar in SF without triggering someone in your vicinity...

"A man can convince anyone he's somebody else, but never himself."
 
Best Response

It's not the most graceful argument, but it is an important one. Here's another of the same kind.

Anti-intellectualism, whether is it conservatives denying global warming or liberals thinking GMO food is bad for you and vaccines cause autism, is absolutely running rampant in our country. Politically, it is expressed by the alt-right's white nationalist dog whistles and continuous assaults on the freedom of the press as well as the collegiate-left's safe spaces, relentless identity politics, and public shamings.

I believe that diversity has an inherent value. In school, the best group projects I were in were with someone who had complimentary skills to mine. Our diverse strengths covered for our diverse weaknesses and the project was better. In real estate development, this situation arises regularly as well. People come into development from different backgrounds - sales, finance, design, operations, construction, etc. - and I love being on a team made up of people with diverse backgrounds. Beyond the development staff, I love talking to the pre-con and the construction guys during jobs, because their backgrounds and skillsets are so different than mine and we can approach problems different ways.

Similarly, economic diversity gives you great perspective on life. My parents, sadly now divorced, came from vastly different worlds. My dad's family was very fortunate. My mom was one of ten, born to farmers. My dad's family has people who have designed then-top secret military equipment. My mom's family are country to the core. Growing up witnessing this was one of the best things that ever happened to me - grounding me and exposing me to things I otherwise wouldn't have seen.

Political diversity is also terrific - echo chambers are becoming an increasing problems. Gender diversity also helps. As much as some people hate to admit it, men and women are different, have different tendencies, and on average, different strengths. Those differences are a good thing - not a bad thing - and a woman's tendencies and strengths are no "less than" a man's. Even racial diversity in a group is beneficial. A white person will simply have different life experiences than a black person, etc., and if it's business we're talking about, you'll want both of those insights in order to maximize profits.

The problem lately it seems is that diversity has simply become a synonym for racial minorities. Somehow, a group of white people from various socioeconomic backgrounds, who hold various political views, is less diverse than a group of black people all from the same background.

Google apparently has the following:

* Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5 * A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates * Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate * Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) * Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

Clearly, the only diversity sought is along gender and racial lines, to the point of imposing quotas to force gender and racial diversity. This doesn't make me angry like it does the alt-right. It doesn't make me feel self-righteous as it does the far-left. It just makes me sad that even among some of the worlds brightest people - Google employees - there is so much intellectual dishonesty.

Are left-leaning, male, white, upper-middle income tech nerds who went to Stanford imposing quotas to make sure that left-leaning, female, white, upper-middle income tech nerds who went to MIT and left-leaning, male, black, upper-middle income tech nerds who went to Harvard are on teams really making those teams more "diverse?" I suppose a little. Seems like it's lacking a whole lot of honesty, though.

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 
Keyser Söze 123:
Curious what you meant by intellectual dishonesty?

Claiming to want diversity because of its inherent benefits to a group while only really wanting racial and gender diversity is to me, intellectually dishonest. If you accept that diversity is beneficial to a group's mindset and deliverable, and I often do, you should look for diversity in all forms - age, background, economic status, political leanings, etc. - not just in two.

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 

One thing, people don't understand what freedom of the press means. It doesn't mean the press is free to put their ears in everything that the government does. It means they are free to write about things they can confirm with out fear of reprisals from the government. Unless we live in very different versions of reality, that hasn't been attacked at all.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 
CRE:
It's not the most graceful argument, but it is an important one. Here's another of the same kind.

Anti-intellectualism, whether is it conservatives denying global warming or liberals thinking GMO food is bad for you and vaccines cause autism, is absolutely running rampant in our country. Politically, it is expressed by the alt-right's white nationalist dog whistles and continuous assaults on the freedom of the press as well as the collegiate-left's safe spaces, relentless identity politics, and public shamings.

I believe that diversity has an inherent value. In school, the best group projects I were in were with someone who had complimentary skills to mine. Our diverse strengths covered for our diverse weaknesses and the project was better. In real estate development, this situation arises regularly as well. People come into development from different backgrounds - sales, finance, design, operations, construction, etc. - and I love being on a team made up of people with diverse backgrounds. Beyond the development staff, I love talking to the pre-con and the construction guys during jobs, because their backgrounds and skillsets are so different than mine and we can approach problems different ways.

Similarly, economic diversity gives you great perspective on life. My parents, sadly now divorced, came from vastly different worlds. My dad's family was very fortunate. My mom was one of ten, born to farmers. My dad's family has people who have designed then-top secret military equipment. My mom's family are country to the core. Growing up witnessing this was one of the best things that ever happened to me - grounding me and exposing me to things I otherwise wouldn't have seen.

Political diversity is also terrific - echo chambers are becoming an increasing problems. Gender diversity also helps. As much as some people hate to admit it, men and women are different, have different tendencies, and on average, different strengths. Those differences are a good thing - not a bad thing - and a woman's tendencies and strengths are no "less than" a man's. Even racial diversity in a group is beneficial. A white person will simply have different life experiences than a black person, etc., and if it's business we're talking about, you'll want both of those insights in order to maximize profits.

The problem lately it seems is that diversity has simply become a synonym for racial minorities. Somehow, a group of white people from various socioeconomic backgrounds, who hold various political views, is less diverse than a group of black people all from the same background.

Google apparently has the following:

* Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5 * A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates * Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate * Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) * Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
Clearly, the only diversity sought is along gender and racial lines, to the point of imposing quotas to force gender and racial diversity. This doesn't make me angry like it does the alt-right. It doesn't make me feel self-righteous as it does the far-left. It just makes me sad that even among some of the worlds brightest people - Google employees - there is so much intellectual dishonesty.

Are left-leaning, male, white, upper-middle income tech nerds who went to Stanford imposing quotas to make sure that left-leaning, female, white, upper-middle income tech nerds who went to MIT and left-leaning, male, black, upper-middle income tech nerds who went to Harvard are on teams really making those teams more "diverse?" I suppose a little. Seems like it's lacking a whole lot of honesty, though.

I wish I could write the way you do.

 

"This doesn't make me angry like it does the alt-right" So if you believe these forced diversity programs are divisive and hurt companies/society AND clearly discriminate against people like yourself, that shouldn't make you angry, just sad?

 

I'm seeing a lot of people saying they agree that he should have the right to say all this, but that they disagree with all the actual points he made.

Everything he said was based on empirical science, and I can't think of a thing he said in his essay that contradicts actual scientific theory or observed, empirical fact.

By the way, he has a PhD in systems biology - most of you, I'm guessing, do not. So this set of topics is exactly in his purview.

If you disagree with the fact that people should be treated as individuals, and that there are definite, measurable and observable differences in both genders and ethnic groups, you are quite simply wrong. It's not up for debate, nor is it a matter of opinion or feeling.

This is the exact line of thought that's led us to this point - a great deal of virtue signaling and desiring to be on the "right side of history" has essentially ruined western culture.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."
 

It's amazing how the left literally denies that there are inherent sex/gender differences. To your point, empirical data proves most of his points (I believe he links to studies each time he makes an assertion), but one doesn't even need empirical data to understand that there are sex/gender differences between men and women. It's like saying, "Prove that men have more muscle mass, on average, than women..."

Array
 

Right, and there's nothing "wrong" or "immoral" or "evil" about this. Unless you think evolution and the universe have some sort of agenda (given that I've now seen articles about how cheese is sexist, I put nothing past these people).

Group characteristics form a basis, a point from which you can start to form heuristics. And then, if you have the ability to judge someone on their individual merits, characteristics and actions/viewpoints, do so. That's it. That's the whole thing. That's basically classical liberalism and western enlightenment step 1.

None of this should be controversial. If you find what he said offensive or controversial, perhaps the EU is more your speed, and you should be forcibly removed.

I know you mean that last part as a joke, but many leading lights in the modern Left would actually probably dispute that. Certainly many third-wave feminists. We have now passed the point of jokes and irony, it seems.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."
 

I agree with some of his points, but firing off a memo to the whole firm at a place like Google is immature and flat out stupid. This isnt college, nobody cares about your political views or your take on the diversity program...just attend your 2-10 mandatory meetings/brainwashing sessions per year and save your commentary for your friends over a beer at the bar.

...Only exception is if his real plan was to parlay this into some kind of right-wing internet fame in which case maybe it could work but let's see how he plays it from here...

 
Bondarb:
I agree with some of his points, but firing off a memo to the whole firm at a place like Google is immature and flat out stupid. This isnt college, nobody cares about your political views or your take on the diversity program

Apparently they do--it's one of the biggest stories in the news cycle today, and he pissed off enough people to lose his job.

Bondarb:
...just attend your 2-10 mandatory meetings/brainwashing sessions per year and save your commentary for your friends over a beer at the bar.

...Only exception is if his real plan was to parlay this into some kind of right-wing internet fame in which case maybe it could work but let's see how he plays it from here...

At least to his points on political bias, I think it does matter. Youtube, for example, in just the last month, has attempted--before getting called out--to shut down Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro's youtube pages for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Only public shaming caused youtube to reverse course. This stuff does matter--it has a direct impact on how they do business.

Array
 

I would agree with this. We're past the point of just putting your head down and working. I think a lot of us have that attitude because we can't possibly imagine that it's actually as bad as it is, that these sorts of people have now essentially taken over.

I doubt he wanted internet fame, this was one of the most polite, mild-mannered "manifestos" (lol) I've ever read in my life. Was practically a friendly email.

I'm being told people actually called in and didn't come to work beca