Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwilliams | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I have some concerns over this approach.

Google is a mediator between users and information. As such, it's really important to have and appear to have as little bias as possible - otherwise it taints the information that is coming through. To be effective as a tool, Google really needs to be transparent and impartial as possible. (See Google in China as a counterexample).

Also, I question how effective this approach would be. I'm not sure many people that oppose gay marriage would be swayed by Google's statement... I mean, Google has a strong brand, but I really doubt people will vote no because "Google says so" in the same way as they would with say, Oprah.

I think there are other advocacy paths that are more effective, and don't spend Google's brand/position in this way.

View on HN

This idea that neutrality is something to strive for ends up marginalizing the correct point of view by giving equal time to the opposing point of view. In this case, the correct answer is obvious, that gay marraige should be permitted at the federal level. Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution -- it only ends up making the creationists look more legitimate. They don't deserve any attention or neutrality. In this case, Google has no bias because they are right.

So: "It's ok, because they're right."

As a journalist (one who just finished interviewing someone I find personally despicable but who's done something newsworthy and interesting so merits coverage) I like to think that my readers are smart enough to suss out their own positions on the things I write about. It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right." My job's to describe them and how they relate to one another and let the reader do his or her homework on which one they think is right.

Drew Curtis has a great chapter in his book in which he rails against the media's penchant for giving equal time to "crazy people." He makes a great argument, but the problem is that it comes from an assumption that your readers are too lazy and dumb to make up their own minds about an issue, so we should be selective in how we treat different sides of an argument. That doesn't sit well.

It's not my job to decide which of the different views on a topic I cover is "correct" or "right."

Right, but it's also not your job to draw false dichotomies and go out of your way to imply moral equivalence just so you can slather a patina of "fairness" over your work.

Even the best (especially the best?) journalists have to editorialize, whether they come to grips with that fact or not. The alternative would be to present an infinity of viewpoints on every topic one covers in any piece one writes. At some point one has to exercise discretion on what gets included and what doesn't, on what gets covered in detail and what doesn't. I don't think it's right or realistic to try to abdicate that part of one's journalistic responsibility.

I agree in the sense that one must place differing viewpoints in context, show how they relate to one another, how they're supported or not supported and in general give an accurate depiction of the lay of the land. If there are dichotomies, they need to be accurate. The last step, declaring one other the other "correct" or "right." is what rankles me.

+1. you're going to be biased whether you want to or not. being aware of the bias is 100 times better than a shallow spackle of surface fairness.

Agreed 100%. No news piece (even on the internet) has an infinite word count available to dedicate to a particular topic. This means that the reporter for the story and the responsible editor have to decide what is actually relevant and newsworthy enough to merit inclusion in the story, and what is chaff. That's not editorializing or biased reporting, it's good newswriting.

Dedicating half of your story to, for instance, a crazy windbag representing a tiny minority for the (professionally misguided and misinterpreted) purpose of an unbiased piece is where the insanity comes in. If in researching a story you find that there are some dissenting views, you include a quote from them somewhere in the piece, but you don't turn your piece into that one guy or one group versus the original focus of the story. That's sloppy and misrepresenting the issue because you've mistaken "unbiased reporting" with "50/50 equal time for two views."

Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution

What a strange analogy. Evolution is a natural phenomena, while marriage is a state-regulated union. There is a set of reasons apart from tradition why legal marriage exists, and very little in that set would apply with any frequency to "gay marriage". The most obvious reason, of course, is that the division of labor between the sexes is inevitably derivative of the constraints created by pregnancy.

Brin doesn't really argue beyond this,

we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.

But this is an error. It's an easy error to make.

Yeah, equality is such a fuzzy premise for an argument. I would have hoped for something more concrete from someone like Sergey.

UPDATE

@downvoter, if equality isn't a fuzzy premise, where is the line drawn between things that should and should not be equal?

For instance, why shouldn't everyone have an equal opportunity to participate in the Olympics? Why shouldn't everyone have an equal opportunity to be a CEO on Wall Street?

It's because they do not have the functionality that these positions require, as mynameishere pointed out regarding marriage. Claiming equality merely glosses over these important distinctions and does not bring any substance to the argument.

In general, I don't understand why they need to have a marriage anyways. Why not just get domestic partnerships granted at the federal level? They'd get much less flak.

The ideal solution is domestic partnerships at the federal level -- for ALL people, regardless of their combination of sex. However, the federal government is never going to relinquish the power of marriage. We're stuck with the state regulating a religious issue. Within this framework, the difference between domestic partnerships is mostly emotional. It is incredibly insulting to suggest that something "separate but equal" is a good solution. Beyond that emotional issue, it is unlikely that something intended to be different in name only would only be different in name only.

That ignores the fact the traditional societal supports for marriage are all based around the fact that it is a generative relationship. That is why more resources are devoted to it.

Sure, maybe same sex relationships can be artificially generative, but this is no where near the capability or likelihood to equal the basis for traditional marriage.

So, same sex relationships should not have the same benefits that are accrued by a generative relationship, since they do not require them and are thus just squandering resources.

Emotional issues are important, but they should not be the bottom line in a situation that clearly has a functional basis. However, the pro side seems to be mainly emotive in their driving arguments.

"The most obvious reason, of course, is that the division of labor between the sexes is inevitably derivative of the constraints created by pregnancy."

You are claiming that this is the primary reason why we have state-regulated marriage? Two words: [citation needed].

The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions for which it provides structure, such as sexual gratification and regulation, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status, and companionship; perhaps its strongest function concerns procreation, the care of children and their education and socialization, and regulation of lines of descent.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/366152/marriage

That's about marriage, not state-regulated marriage. You are being intellectually dishonest.

The quote is about marriage as a social institution. States are known to regulate social institutions within their spheres of influence.

Nothing you've said amounts to anything near a citation for his claim.

How does giving equal time to different views marginalize any?

This also sets a dangerous precedent if those who present the arguments are convinced they know which one is right. If it is legitimate for them to favor one over the other, then they end up dictating what is "right" for the masses, which is essentially censorship.

A search engine who claims to be neutral yet have social-political bias is never a good thing. The word from the top filters throughout the whole organization, if you don't want to loose your job you have to believe what they believe. Therefore if you are working on search, you are going to be biased towards your your company policies (beliefs), wanting to please your superiors, and keeping your job.

I'm not sure that 'marginalising' is the right term but but I agree with the concept. Often, in attempt to be neutral there's a tendency to assign equal weight or validity to all points of view. This is often the case when you have an approximately 50/50 split (eg creationism/evolution in The States). But if you think that an objective truth exists (a right answer) to a fundamental moral/practical/scientific issue, it feels a lot like pandering.

A way to try & look at it from a position where you see something as this as an undeniable truth is to imagine a debate in a different time or place. Equal voting rights for women/minorities was once controversial in the US & Europe, How HIV infection occurs is controversial in some places currently. Would you be able to give equal time to all positions in these cases?

I totally agree, except for one thing:

Being right doesn't preclude bias.

Yep, being brave is hard and has risks. Personally I'm glad Google is still willing to take them.

I wasn't arguing on the stance - just their approach.

There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward. I just don't see this as an action that would change people's minds.

I just believe Google has much better avenues for advocacy than this approach.

I don't think this is about making an actual splash. Maybe it was done for the benefit of the Google employees?

I would be surprised if this is noticed by the national media.

Almost definitely. Brin stated:"...it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8."

A company isn't just a profit machine. People live and work there to a degree. He probably saw some injustices in his company, and wanted to make a strong statement about how employees should be treated.

Perhaps secretly tilting all search results towards pro-gay-marriage websites would have been better?

Of course they could also pour millions into campaigns. But I don't see why they should have to - they chose to make that statement in their blog, and maybe prefer to spend the millions on other things. What is wrong with that?

That would be dishonest - not to mention a far graver threat to a free society than any legal bugaboo about what constitutes 'marriage.'

I meant my statement as irony.

I should hope so, but I'm too jaded to assume so anymore.

"There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward."

The reward is equal treatment for our gay brothers and sisters. The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down, not that I think they will. Are we so blinded by success and money here that we can't see a "reward" in helping a fellow human being?

> The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down

Unfortunately, the law says that the Google Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If they decide to use the company in a way that is damaging to their shareholders' interests, they can be sued.

Securities laws were introduced about eight decades ago to protect the small investor. The concern was that the small investor had little control over the actions of a company. Therefore, he had to be protected from the possibility that the managers might take his capital and use it for their own private purposes. The law makes no judgment about whether those private purposes are base or noble. If you want to sell shares to large amounts of people, then you are constrained by law to act in their best interest.

Privately supporting equality for our gay brothers and sisters is one thing. Repurposing a publicly-held web services company to do so is quite another.

So if google came out against slavery or child molestation that would be a bad thing? I understand that the board has legal obligations, but to say that this is an issue that is even debatable is beyond ridiculous to me. Look at every companies "diversity" shot on their web page or brochure, companies like to show the public that they are caring and compassionate. This is no different.

> So if google came out against slavery or child molestation that would be a bad thing?

I didn't make the previous statement but I don't think that is what was meant. The point is that shareholder laws state that the purpose of the company is to make money for all shareholders, not to push a social agenda. A company can take a stand on issues but when profit and social issues collide the company is bound to follow profit.

I hear what you are trying to say - but I was questioning the approach, not the intent.

I understand, I have in no way judged your personal morals in this at all.

What is so brave about taking the politically correct view?

It's brave because we can all pat ourselves on each others' backs and talk about how brave it is.

Don't question the mob. The mob is always right.

It might be PC on Hacker News, but it's certainly not even in the state of CA. Leave CA and the opposite view is the prevalent one.

Leave da bubble! (And also vote no on Prop 8. kthx.)

The politically correct view is to dodge the issue. There are a large number of people that oppose a stance in either direction, so the best thing to do is say nothing and give nothing to either side to use as a reason to dislike you.

I'd buy that if all the people opposed weren't being downmodded into the ground.

To have a position from which dissent is not tolerated is the definition of PC. Hence the "correct" part of PC.

I'll agree it's PC on Hacker News because apparently we have a large number of readers who don't like prop 8. As to the downmodding, there are other reasons that your comment could have been downmodded.

Once you escape the bubble that is Hacker News you find an extremely large population of religious people that are for prop 8.

So you have large populations for and against. Thus, either position is strongly supported and opposed, there is no correct position that will not be assaulted. Google didn't post on Hacker News, they posted on a public blog.

You're forgetting about Google's employees -- would you want to work for someone who refuses to take a stand on whether you can visit your partner in the hospital? Someone who provides full same-sex couple benefits in name only?

Why exactly should I be limited to only one partner?

You shouldn't.

If we're going to redefine marriage as two people who love each other and want a long-term commitment, then there is no logical reason n=2 and 2 alone.

Because both the government and corporations don't want to be giving you plus your 7 wives/husbands benefits.

You shouldn't be limited to one partner in terms of love/sex/living together/whatnot if you so desire. Why the hell should I care? But let's say that your job offers healthcare for you and your partner - if you have 18 partners, that's a hell of a different cost from one partner.

Likewise, let's say that you slip into a comma. Who has say over that feeding tube? That's already complicated! Let's say I'm some rich jerk trying to skirt the inheritance tax. Well, spouses are one way around it. Well, clearly my kids are also my spouses! Who gets to visit you at the hospital and who doesn't? Well, spouse 1 says your friend Joe should come, but spouse 2 hates Joe. Does it work by majority voting? What if they can't find all your spouses and you're dying and Joe really wants to see you?

So, if you think of marriage as the government telling you that you can only love/have sex with/live with one person, it seems oppressive if you desire something else. If you see marriage as this standard government contract that says you are allowed to designate one other individual for partner benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. then it makes sense.

The problem is that our society equates marriage with love/sex. Marriage should probably be seen as a contract. As such, you can see how it wouldn't really work to designate 6 people as having the right to determine whether you stay on life support. Yes, you could simply create individual contracts specifying everything that marriage entails, but that's tedious, expensive, prone to error and requires everyone who deals with you to have a lawyer to interpret that agreement - and they're not going to want to spend hundreds of dollars for a lawyer and tons more in liability to interpret your individualized contracts so they'll just deny you. Marriage is a standard convenience contract and shouldn't be confused with love or sex.

//I'm really interested to see if you disagree with this or how you think things like benefits/hospital visitation/whatnot should work in poly relationships (yeah, sociology student ;-))

I actually don't have any interest in or experience with poly relationships - I was merely asking as a rhetorical question. But everything you said makes sense - being able to designate a single person to make those kinds of important decisions is extremely useful. It would be very good if those rights/responsibilities could be unbundled from marriage.

Where it gets more complicated is in things like the tax code - it seems advantageous to society to offer tax breaks to married couples, with the idea being that this will help them have more resources for raising children. Of course this is predicated upon the notion that a husband-wife team is the best way to raise children (which I happen to believe). If gay marriage is strictly equal to straight marriage, those sorts of policies would seem to disproportionately favor gay couples (who tend not to have children) over straight ones (who generally do).

"It would be very good if those rights/responsibilities could be unbundled from marriage."

The opposite of this is why many people are advocating allowing same sex couples to participate in marriage. It is difficult to assemble exactly the parts of the marriage rights/responsibilities that you want in a legally binding way. Just getting the whole package with the label "marriage" is a big benefit.

you can see how it wouldn't really work to designate 6 people as having the right to determine whether you stay on life support.

Actually, this is done all the time.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22board+of+directors%22+star...

BondBook's Backers Pull the Plug, Citing Lack of Critical Mass ... The board of directors reached this decision because current market conditions in the ...

After fifty years of futile funding, it’s time to pull the plug. ...

I would send this business plan to my board of directors for approval with my .... We pull the plug when we find that the startup is not going as per the ...

rounds of financing while reserving the option to pull the plug if the experiments ...

I found your argument lacking. I wouldn't say I disagree, but I'm still of the opinion that n=2 couples is seriously old-fashioned the same way opposite-sex marriages are. If people love one another and want a permanent union, we should allow them to. To argue that we should open this up to same-sex and still leave it at 2 is to have a strange mix of progressiveness and conservatism.

1) People don't want to pay for it. Well, last I checked we weren't adding up figures. This is a definition change. The economics of it are free to work in various ways. For instance, companies could offer n-couple insurance with scaling rates.

2) Who makes executive decisions? ie, Who Pulls The Plug. I'd think you'd set this up the same way any n-party organization, like a board of directors, would. You could just vote. Or go by age. Or by gender. Seems like your marriage contract would be the place to put this.

We allow lots of people to form agreements with n-people. We allow people to live with whomever they choose. Why not allow these agreements to have the force of marriage? I can form a multi-billion-dollar business deal with 7 women but we can't all call each other spouses? It's just stupid. And it's cruel. Especially to me. :)

I don't think you addressed the argument.

You can set up whatever legal arrangements you want. But marriage is a sensible default for the majority of people, thus specifically written into specific laws to make our society function more smoothly. If you want a custom arrangement that is less in demand, that is going to have some higher costs and less convenience for you. But that is true of many things, heavily customized products are often more costly and inconvenient than just buying the show room floor model.

I think this is what the post you responded to is arguing for, not some prohibition on non-standard living arrangements.

> I'm still of the opinion that n=2 couples is seriously old-fashioned the same way opposite-sex marriages are.

I think finding n > 2 people willing to share each other is more than a little problematic.

Besides, if you really love someone, like enough-to-marry-her lot, do you need to have anyone else?

On the other hand, would you be willing to be married to a woman with 6 other husbands?

Why should anyone, or a collective entity, sit idly by while things are being said and done that they do not believe in?

Everyone is so indifferent to everyone else in this day in age. Why shouldn't Google (at least their executive board) be able to say that they feel strongly that gay marriage is a right that should be had?

Your style of thinking is a dangerous subconcious attitude that has crept across our nation since the latter half of the 20th century. Stand up for what you believe, because if you don't you may lose out on more than just your rights.

Google is taking a stand against bias. Bravo for them. They blew it on China - they may be getting this one right.

"Impartiality" on whether to treat people with justice or not doesn't scan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com