The Artist Leaving the Googleplex | Hacker News Reader

The Artist Leaving the Googleplex

e-flux.com

81 pointswallflower70 comments

What I find most interesting about this piece is the awesome lifestyle of flitting from grant to grant as a semi-celebrity in the international jet-set art world. Also lets you feel good about "leaking" your employer's information to "organizers." Take that, employer! And best of all, you get to use the word "show" as a nontransitive verb, as in "I showed at Venice."

Apparently this lifestyle is only available if you're a (to use the author's term) "Marxist." But then again, I suppose anyone can read Negri and Hardt if they're patient enough.

No word on what, if any, ideological filters Google is supposed to apply to its contractor pool so this doesn't happen again. Perhaps they could ask trap questions about postcolonial theory, rejecting anyone who answered correctly...

There's a lot of odd insinuations and expectations in this piece. I found particularly strange the part where he talks about his joy in talking communist politics in Berkeley and then immediately muses about how to make these skills 'marketable' and about his resentment that he might not be rewarded with a comfortable bourgeois middle-class existence. Feels like there are a lot of unstated assumptions and arguments behind his opinions and actions which he never makes explicit or considers.

Or abusing the system to score income on the sale of his house. I nearly snorted at that point.

I think you're misinterpreting this. I think he moved into a unit of a luxury building (that was required to be rented to a low income person) and lived there until the unit was sold.

True, seems like that at second reading.

(Seems like a pretty silly requirement to me. Can't they just use the tax and welfare system to combat inequality in a sane way?)

Thats the least of it. The entire second half of the piece is flagrant self promotion and self-congratulatory humblebrag.

I dislike Google as much as anyone, but this author is no better.

>the awesome lifestyle of flitting from grant to grant as a semi-celebrity in the international jet-set art world

This reads like a snide remark toward art and artists in general... if it is, why?

Nah, kapitza is complaining about the author of the piece, who seems to be a big prick.

I think the problem with Google is that it advertised (still does?) itself, in a rather believable way, as being be diverse, fun, everyone working together -- developers, janitors and artists all holding hands creating a brigher tomorrow and perhaps fighting against evil.

Well it worked for me back then, I really did believe Google was "Don't Be Evil" kind of company and so on, vis-a-vis say Microsoft, or say Walmart. Which were not evil, just you know, regular companies makign money. At least I remember buying into the PR.

So you see, Google took advantage of that image, and it worked out great for them. The problem is as soon as they went that way it became a high risk game, because from then on they will be judged according to that standard.

So I don't see a problem at all with criticizing it. It really set itself up to a higher standard, so there is nothing wrong with pointing fingers at it and saying "look at the hypocrisy".

The other more telling thing, is the story around it the video. How quickly this supposedly tollerant, open, diverse company moved to fire this person. You can only be tollerant and open as long as you are tollerant and open about approved things. You have the freedom to choose between the chocolate cake and the strawberry cake, but you don't get to ask how the cake is made, basically.

> So you see, Google took advantage of that image, and it worked out great for them. The problem is as soon as they went that way it became a high risk game, because from then on they will be judged according to that standard.

Among people who are aware of that standard, I agree with you. On the other, sadder hand, I think that, to most people, Google really is Just Another Company. And we expect companies--except maybe Apple, except actually really Apple too--to be heartless, soulless optimizing machines.

That we tolerate that behavior out of social constructed created expressly to help society...well, whether they're doing that, and whether we should do something about the ones that aren't, is a deeply political matter, but tangential.

Why single out Apple? They aren't that nice to their employees.

And if you single out Apple, you can also single out Amazon: they may treat their employees badly by Google standards, but I am delighted to be their customer.

I'm not talking about the corporation with regards to its employees. I'm talking about the corporation in regards to the society that it exists within, and the strange conceptual notion that it for some reason should be an amoral creature within that society. What I am referring to is that there are people who feel that Apple is different, on some level, that they're not "the usual company"--but, ultimately, I think they realize that it, too, is the usual company save for a better coat of paint.

Corporations answer to their owners. (At least in theory, in practice they are mostly run for the benefit of management.)

The owners can decide on what goals the company should pursue. Profit is just one of the possibilities. (But of course, there's a zero-bound on profit: if you take losses for too long, you don't have a business left.)

Corporations do not answer just to their owners, they answer to the society that grants them their charter. The society that allows the corporation to operate can destroy it just as easily as it permitted its creation. This should, in a functioning society, behoove the corporation to act like a decent citizen would. In practice, it does not.

I'm getting tired of hypocrisy being held up as the ultimate sin. The world is more complex than that. Humans cannot fully logically integrate EVERYTHING they believe at the same time, it's just biologically impossible. Expecting people to be 100% consistent 100% of the time is ultimately silly.

And for companies, well they are ultimately just groups of people. So the same issue.

Also, open and tolerant doesn't mean unlimited anything goes. This applies even to the parent-child relationship. If you disagree, think about the parents who had to deal with children who steal, use violence and destroy stuff. You ultimately have to draw a line at self preservation! Same thing for a company and culture. You have to preserve the culture, and if that means ejecting people who mean to do it harm, then how is that a horrible thing? The author himself would eject counter-revolutionaries from his revolutionary party, so in principle he agrees with this sentiment.

As for the 'Don't Be Evil' - lots of people at Google still believe in this. The problem is once you go global, life gets very very hard and you are forced to make difficult decisions. And sometimes you get them wrong. And you try again. But to harp on bad decisions is like a husband who won't EVER let his wife forget THAT ONE TIME. That's hardly constructive.

> I'm getting tired of hypocrisy being held up as the ultimate sin.

I didn't say it is the ultimate sin. So should it not be criticized and pointed out? It is like saying "well murder is worse than theft, so don't talk about theft". That's not how it works. I think every culture and society has a strong bias against hypocrisy and it is a popular topic in folk stories and culture (say making fun or criticizing hypocrites).

Just like many pointed out at a core character flaw in the author -- he was stealing food and not abiding by the NDA, implying they probably would not want to be friends them or work wit, because there is an integrity issue (which I agree with), hypocrisy is the same way -- it points to a flaw deeper issue at the core. If it is of a company, it points to a structural or culture issue.

> Expecting people to be 100% consistent 100% of the time is ultimately silly.

Just like people in power are watched, criticized and held to a higher standard, so are companies. With people say, you might care if US president is doing cocaine or likes stealing from department stores, but you might not care as much if someone you never heard across town does it. Why? Because those in power, when they corrupt, they can cause a lot of damage. I was a bit extreme in the sample, but think about this one as well -- someone who holds nuclear launch codes should not believe that the world was created 4000 years ago. This can happen in US and is worrisome right?

And it is the same with companies. A company like Google which control, manages, stores and handle a large amount of world's internet and data traffic, having "minor" integrity issues is a huge deal. Some 2 person company who is spamming everyone with Viagra emails, is doing a lot worse, but nobody cares about that, because they don't have any power or influence.

> This applies even to the parent-child relationship

Agree on principle, in general here. But that is a bit odd case, mostly because it turn the "company is a family and is like careful watchful father, looking after its children". There is something very jarring about that to me.

> Same thing for a company and culture. You have to preserve the culture, and if that means ejecting people who mean to do it harm

I think the debate is about culture and the artist pointed towards what the culture might be. I think they are trying to say there is a problem with it.

> As for the 'Don't Be Evil' - lots of people at Google still believe in this.

Of course. The best PR is the one that is bought internally. Assigning high ethical standards and morality to companies is the problem here isn't it. The fact that many seemingly bright, analytically minded people bought into it is a bit worrying.

See, the problem here is you're just too cynical. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Regarding hypocrisy, the problem isn't that people are distrustful of thieves, the problem is its a capital sin that is used to find the slightest of problems with your opponents then based on literally doing nothing wrong, attempt to destroy them. It's about giving people space to change their mind. Unless you think the whole 'flip flopper' development was positive and we should prize people who hold on to opinions regardless of how incorrect they become.

As for personality, this article popped up today and I think it's relevant: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/24/48185966...

Finally, as for Google's data I can say without a doubt that we have one of the best internal IT and security policies I have seen anywhere. Not only are the polices solid, the implementation is vastly superior to any other security system in the civilian area, and possibly some military ones. The google privacy and security teams (yup, multiple) are passionate about this and are extremely proactive. There is a lot of people working on this area. I fully trust Google with my data.

(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.)

> sometimes mining information to leak to organizer friends

> After 9–12 hours on campus I would fill my Google-issued bag with Naked juices and to-go containers of food for my roommates

So... deliberate violation of the corporate NDA (which is massively disrespectful to the other people who work here) and stealing food from the cafes. I'm happy to work at a company that fires people who take something offered in good faith and abuse it. It is a part of our company culture to give people broad freedom to do what they think they should, on the understanding that they will act responsibly and not abuse the privilege.

(I can't comment much on the rest of the article, except to say that I feel a person who has openly admitted their tendency to dishonesty is perhaps not best afforded a high level of trust in the claims that they make)

I completely disagree. Someone who discloses things of this nature seems even more honest.

In my opinion you seem like a bit of a square. :|

edit: Goobye kharma.

No I agree with you. I got about half way through till I realized this is all about a self-entitled prick. He spent the front half of the article talking about himself, then justified it with the fact that Google may hire people to do work. OH MY GOSH CALL THE POLICE!

The NDA is inexcusable. The food though...seems like everybody does it.

I don't think any company would ignore pilfering on a large scale (everybody doing it). Now, large companies might have an office or two which deviate from the norm and may tolerate it a bit, but company-wide, I don't think so.

Yeah, personal morals are silly. Throw Snowden down the well.

I've often taken a drink or a snack from the office for later in the evening or the next day. Never considered that this might be frowned upon. On the other hand, taking large quantities of items frequently seems like an abuse of a perk.

That's how I understand it. "fill my bag with juices" is not the same as taking a snack for later.

I've heard multiple times that taking food home is "ungoogly". I can't remember exactly where, but I think at least once in one of the many training/ethics videos I had to watch.

It's OK to take food onto the bus ride home if you're working, or would have missed dinner because of the long ride. Taking large amounts of food to feed multiple family members on a regular basis is not.

It's well tolerated within bounds. Regularly feeding your roommates seems well outside those bounds.

I would agree with you here, and I think most googlers would too. We trust people to make sensible choices about this, and tend to be quite angry with blatant abuse, because it's abusing the trust as well as the perk.

> The food though...seems like everybody does it.

The people who work here are the sort of people who don't, and that's intentional. Enjoy the things that are provided, but understand the context and intent behind them and don't abuse them. We get to have these things because we collectively take responsibility for not abusing them. That's how you avoid the tragedy of the commons - if everybody abused them then we'd have to stop having them so freely available.

I don't. My coworkers don't. I rarely see people in my building doing that.

That's the problem with universal quantifiers, they are so easily disproven.

I think that works for any kind of voluntary grouping. When people abuse a cultural conventions and other implicit taboos for personal gain it's really detrimental to the larger group. Now, sure, he might see the larger group as his foe, and so be it, and so it's their privilege to let this kind of person go (and to keep them would undermine group cohesion).

It's like someone coming from a culture where people patiently stand in line and then you have someone from a culture where people are used to jostling for position, it creates friction in a population of people who wait their proper turn. (and vice versa would also be true the former always complaining about people not being orderly)

According to the article, the author was neither hired nor fired by Google. The author worked on campus for a contractor.

That's even worse, he's jeopardizing the perk of contractors being extended that privilege.

Per the article, some contractors were not extended various privileges during the period the author worked on Google's campus. The author's curiosity regarding the differential access to Google facilities, equipment, and food precipitated his termination.

Never the less he jeopardized the status for others who didn't have a say in his unilateral activism.

On the one hand I understand his sense of juvenile fairness, on the other he's jeopardizing the benefits extended to a class of workers who the company is not contractually obligated to provide.

Back a long time ago MS temps sued MS for keeping them as "permanent temps". One of the arguments was MS treated them in many ways as direct employees (meetings, outings, perks, etc.) The result of that is that temps are now treated as temps (curbed perks so as not to blend/blur the distinction). Be careful what you wish for.

I can't say I disagree with this analysis but as an ex-googler I once confronted an employee who had just stuffed at least a six pack of red bull into their backpack at the mini kitchen(MK).

Their rebuke was defensive as expected, but they also pointed out that (at the time) Google is getting rich by stealing everyone else's information and then putting ads around it and reselling it to other people, so taking a few bucks worth of soft drinks from the MK really wasn't much of a problem.

It was a rationalization of course, but it was built on a kernel of truth, and one that the author touches on as well. Which is that culturally at Google, the company felt they held the right to decide the morality of any action in the way that most favored Google. Whether that meant giving away the stories from newspapers by crawling them and summarizing them or by skating on the edges of labor laws to convert something from an expensive automation project to a simpler sweatshop project.

For those who chose to look deeply at the company's actions, I can see how it would be unsettling.

Aren't you forgetting about robots.txt?

(The argument about stealing becomes more complicated when you have to explain why people are not putting up a robots.txt. You might still be able to make it, though.)

Except that IP violation, isn't a form of theft.

Also, Google, and every other search engine, is covered under fair use.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

(Ie I agree with you. My comment was just worded rather narrowly.)

I wasn't, that is a good point. And after Google I helped run a search engine :-) I was not saying that I advocated the person's point of view or even agreed with it, only that I recognized the argument they were making. Which was people "give" services with some expectation of how they are used, and feel abuse when their expectations are interpreted differently.

To use our anonymous employee's perspective, Google was "giving away free drinks to employees." They were an employee, they were taking drinks. At the time the policy was not as explicit as it was after the great MK purge. So they chose to interpret the policy without considering the "intent" (which was drinks when you are at the office). They compared it to newspapers (and to a lesser extent the books project) which at the time were exploiting "fair use" loopholes to drive traffic to Google's sites, where Google placed advertising. Google was sued by a number of different groups over this. As a result advertising is subtle/non-existent on the news.google.com page and somewhat subdued on the books.google.com page.

I agree with Ryan that sites get more out of Google showing results from their pages than they perceive they "lose" by not having people come to their site to read the full story. And while we can argue about magnitude, the reality is that the "web" link on HN stories lets you get the referrer set to Google and that can sometimes jump the paywall of a web site. If such a thing wasn't possible the publisher would argue those people would pay. But as perhaps Forbes has found out, maybe not so much with the ad blocking crowd.

The argument I recognize is that one side might choose to see only that evidence that supports the conclusion they have already arrived at. And the dismissal of contrary evidence is perceived as a lack of integrity.

Oh, definitely. I agree.

Meh, I think that argument (stealing everyone's information) is post-rationalization with a particular preset frame of reference in mind.

So I disagree with the 'kernel of truth'. That isn't the kernel of truth. Google isn't stealing everyone's information (IP laws are weird sometimes, but the bottom line is there isn't a natural monopoly to information like there is to, say, real property), and there is a beneficial exchange. When done right, and adwords is a good example, ads can benefit the user as well.

Internet search engines are beneficial to the user, the site owner, and society as a whole. Adwords are very powerful, and they are underwriting a whole host of really awesome shit, eg: android, chrome, gmail, google photos, tensorflow, and much much more. Overall civilization is benefiting immensely.

Think what would the world be like if Google was run by the kinds of people who ran tobacco and oil companies? The kind of people who have repressed scientific discovery in the name of profits. Google has it's warts, but nothing that evil. I think we are forgetting how shitty people are out there, and we are getting too relative. Google to perfect is a lot closer than Exxon to perfect.

Wow - what a self-indulgent pseudo intellectual prick. Nobody forced him to work there.

OK, so this guy's problem with Google is that it doesn't give all of its perks to all employees? Why the hell would the company treat employees from significantly different labour markets the same way in the first place? Is there some crazy assumption that any employee should be equally valuable to the company?

You seemed to have missed the 'race' aspect entirely; did you actually read the article?

I was under impression that race has correlation with education, skills and value on labour market all over US already, so if you picked a sample of random white-collar/blue-collar workers, you would see pretty much the same picture. How does it become Google's responsibility all of a sudden?

Because this guy with a grudge told you it was so.

On the contrary, they wouldn't have a career doing non-parody corporate commentary art without that very behavior.

Being able to use the restroom when you need to is a perk?

Yes. I don't know how they organized scanning books, but in a lot of jobs it makes total sense. Do you know how a conveyor belt works, for example?

Soccer players earn millions of dollars, but they still can't go to a bathroom break in the middle of a game.

I do know how a conveyor belt works. Have you heard of contingency planning?

A soccer player is out on the field for, 45 minutes? Have you seen contracts that restricts a player's ability to use a restroom?

OK, just in case my point is not obvious: these are _examples_. These examples are illustrating a thesis that certain jobs can have good reasons for restricting employees access to the bathroom. Of course, I don't have any idea of what goes into soccer players contracts, because that's not the point.

You claimed your illustrative example as actual fact.

45 minutes would be no different than having to attend meetings during which you would not be allowed to leave to use a restroom.

Excellent point. I've had to work in retail. You don't just get to go to the bathroom because someone has to man the front desk. This is a fact of the business. If you don't like it, feel free to go somewhere else. No one is stopping you.

Uh, working 4am to 2:15pm has nothing to do with meal perks.

I wonder why they don't just hire people in a better timezone.

(Though eg bakers in Germany got up even earlier to make fresh bread every day.)

The author is an unreliable narrator. He mentions many incongruous aspects of his experience that just can't be true. For example, he says he waited in line next to people in SurveyMonkey t-shirts, but he worked at Google from 08-09. SurveyMonkey was only in Portland at that time.

Direct link to video: https://player.vimeo.com/video/15852288

"Being a person means being paranoid that you might be a puppet, and being an artist means making things that you want to see exist, to defy that paranoia, by communicating past anything you could rationally explain away."

As much as I dislike Google's practices, I don't think a self-described Marxist can claim moral superiority over anyone.

can't post anything negative about Google on HN. Will get automatically down voted by their thousands of drones, I mean employees.

Is it actually possible to downvote postings on HN?

(Why am I being downvoted for asking an honest question?)

yes but I believe you need a certain amount of karma

You can't downvote articles, just comments (at least with my karma). IIRC articles move down if they fail to receive up votes and collect comments.

You can't ever downvote articles, although they will drop faster in ranking if they're flagged by (many) users. Also, there's a "flamewar detector" which has something to do with vote to comment ratio.

And trust me, the down votes tend to be pro-marxist. So that this is getting so much attention speaks volumes about just HOW bad he presented this tale.

How do you tell where the downvotes are coming from?

Please disregard early downvotes.

It still mostly balances out in the longer run so far. But these days will end as well.

Really? This is on the front page.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com