Probably because employees motivated enough to protest value the actual ecosystem more than the technological one, and care more about detention camps at the border than an url format? (just a wild guess)
You still can, and should pay attention to issues one step away from you.
The OP literally called protesting one thing silly and the other thing protest worthy, so it sounds like your beef is with them.
I am not saying it would be wrong that they protest AMP and not ICE, just that you can't be surprised it doesn't happen.
Looks like it's supporting what I said.
As for bubbles we are all living in them. For example, by being an American-based activist, you believe your US-centric disagreements around enforcement of immigration policies to be a global issue. Which looks funny for someone from outside, like me. I would say that long queues for cancer treatment in my country is more important for me. Your bubble is not holier then mine, or any other human out there.
I am not American (nor living or ever lived in the USA), I am not an activist. :)
I am just able to look at the situation from the point of view of people protesting (I think it's called empathy), and I can understand why, for them, protesting ICE/Big Oil, is more important than protesting amp.
Society's use of oil and gas is a totally political question of how much pain we experience in the near term vs the long term and who pays for any trade-offs that get made. It is not kosher for employees of a company to use their corporate position to push what are private political goals.
Particularly because Google's position in the world is to provide people with facts and evidence - if they are being pressured internally by political actors then that compromises their trustworthiness as a search provider. They aren't a traditional media organisation where a page full of propaganda and lies is par for the course and everyone knows it. People expect them to use a politically neutral algorithm.
Are there people who believe that we need "urgent and decisive action" on political topics who have influence over the search index? How are they using that influence? What would happen if the next generation of employees have a radically different political view? These aren't new questions; Google's rankings are always going to be an interesting subject - and there is every chance that someone is running a smear campaign with stories of these intercompany issues. However, they are the important questions when Google employees do something political.
lol, yes, when it comes to oil and gas, it's widely expected that companies not push for political goals. Oil and gas companies companies steer well clear of those politics. Yep.
I hope that every user here tries to leave hacker news a better, more thoughtful place than they found it.
Please, do tell, then. Because "that's not a nice reaction" is not the same as an uncharitable interpretation.
It's ridiculous on its face to call for employees of a company to not engage in politics and define the use of oil and gas as political and therefore out of bounds, when the actions being taken here are engaging with the actions of oil and gas companies.
(leaving aside the idea that it's ok for me, internet commentator, to have strong opinions, but not the employees that make some product I use)
There is a difference between a company and it's individual employees, and rephrasing the statement such that "employees of a company" is replaced with "a company" in order to mock a user is rude and also not substantive.
Unless there's a good argument that managers and executives are somehow different than other employees, companies pushing for political goals absolutely are employees of a company using their position to push private political goals.
What's the difference between employees of a company pushing for political change versus company executives using their position and influence to affect politics?
ie, https://time.com/5713537/amazon-seattle-city-council/
The answer is there is none. A company is founded by people, and people run the company, either as workers, shareholders, or both. In the end, this is a good sign for us regular people. We want change, and the only way to get it is to get political. Either that, or riots.
The executives shouldn't be doing that either. However, the core role of the executive is to decide how to deploy a companies resources. That is a pretty substantial difference.
> We want change ...
'We' is presumably a group of people living in a democratic first world country. We have systems for deciding what 'we' want, and it frequently spits out results that suggest 'we' do not want change.
There is no such thing as a politically neutral algorithm. Algorithms exist to implement decisions that have been previously made, and these decisions are political in nature. Neutrality is the name given to people and institutions that support the status quo, and therefore they cannot be viewed as apolitical, even though, for lack of understanding, many believe to be operating outside of politics.
Strongly disagree. If google censors information relating to Tiananmen Square, that supports the status quo without being neutral. If they don't filter that information out they undermine the status quo while remaining neutral. I could at least understand the position that no censorship can be construed as being politically opposed to censorship, but I don't really think that's the case in all cases; it is simpler to make a tool for finding knowledge in the general case than it is to make a tool that additionally filters that knowledge on ideological grounds.
Do you have evidence for that? To use the cliché, your statement seems to show more how you see the world than how they see it.
I'm stating the obvious fact that former Googlers have made themselves notable by engaging in public activism while at the company. Both conservative and liberal. If one dreams of becoming an activist and one happens to work at Google there are footsteps to follow in.
Insofar as personal advancement goes. While there are exceptions, it should be fair to expect that what one does at work may be somehow related to personal advancement. This can be advancement in terms of getting promotions, growing skills, or establishing a reputation.
Wholly selfless people aren't the norm in corporate work environments. That's fine. You can be a good person and not wholly selfless.
Whereas protesting something separate from corporate that is a safe (because let's face it, separating kids from their parents is incredibly messed up), probably won't jeopardize their job.
Maybe at a micro-level, optimizing AdWords so that users "click more ads" is probably an incredibly empty job. Maybe by protesting something more virtuous, it gets them through their day jobs?