Hacker News Reader

Comment by scyzoryk_xyz | Hacker News Reader

So this is a video production department, which is kind of amazing when you think about it. The aesthetic of the modern corporate/tech video is cultish in character and it would make sense that these people know how to do this. And then it’s also interesting because one could assume that these people could do so because the actual engineers in Alphabet probably aren’t all that focused or interacting with this video team more than necessary. And they don’t know much about video production anyways, not enough to scrutinize hiring decisions.

This sounds like something that will take a little more organized effort to stamp out, probably internal investigation, evidence gathering etc. But if this guy figured it out, they didn’t cover their tracks very well anyways ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

View on HN

> they didn’t cover their tracks very well anyways ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean they actually told him where they were from (geographically, if not organizationally), so clearly they didn't consider it something that needed to be secret.

Which is interesting, because it gives us insight into their way of thinking [1]. They clearly don't consider themselves to be in any way toxic like the author thinks they are.

Cults are interesting: they provide a sense of belonging and accomplishment to their members, in exchange for something (time, money/tithe, ...). In that respect, they're just another point on the spectrum of human social groups. Including some corporations. Frankly, I (and clearly other commenters here) have difficulty finding a clear ontological distinction between such a cult and, well, the Google corporation itself.

[1] I'm already Othering them, which I'm sure they'd be surprised about

The satanic and brainwashing/deprogramming scares of the 80’s changed the way a lot of people use the word, but for the preceding several millennia cult simply suggested:

A membership community with secrets and opportunities reserved for members.

There are millions of these around us, and we’re all probably members of several. It seems to be pretty normal throughout history. We just don’t acknowledge it as such because the word was only fairly recently stigmatized.

We call non-religious cults "cliques" now...

Yes, I think in this context the word "cult" is inappropriate. The word the author was looking for is "clique".

Umm, members of cliques don't ritually abuse each other - that's a cult thing.

Okay, more nuance: The shit this "Fellowship of Friends" actually does - that's a cult. I guess wanted to say they're a clique of cult members.

The cult is real. The clique is the group within Google (as opposed to there being a cult within Google), I hope that distinction makes sense.

I've seen this before. At the BBC. Everyone closed ranks around Jimmy Savile and an organisation called PIE (paedophile information exchange). You were literally told you couldn't say anything about it. But AFAIK the rotten group was small, but powerful. Many, many more decent people work at the BBC. As I'm sure applies to Google.

Edit:

I say this because the headline "Cult within Google" is misleading. (I bloody hate Google and everything they stand for - but there's an important distinction to be made)

Costco: a modern cult.

Partake in the Holy Communion of the Perpetual $1.50 Hot Dog Combo.

Ah, the hot dog tithe. To be raised to $2.50 soonTM.

"Not so" according to RandomMediaOutletTM[0]

[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/phew-costco-absolutely-pos...

> A membership community with secrets and opportunities reserved for members.

That can also be a guild.

"Cult" is a term from the study of religion (a particular field's jargon, if you will), and usually conveys intense devotion, a ritual or sacrificial dimension that goes beyond a master craftsman's level of devotion to a craft.

Also, a guild can't entertain fanciful ideas about their craft for too long, if the ideas don't work in practice.

The distinction is kind of like using Cobol to build a good solid system (guild), versus dropping some Lisp to reach enlightenment (cult), or using C to build a solid system (cult).

In which case, I'm voting cult all the way.

> "Cult" is a term from the study of religion (a particular field's jargon, if you will), and usually conveys intense devotion, a ritual or sacrificial dimension that goes beyond a master craftsman's level of devotion to a craft.

That might be the modern colloquial use, but I don't think it has much to do with the use of the word "cult" in the study of religion?

As I understand the word, you might talk about the cult associated with a particular temple (meaning just local practices, as opposed to more widespread general practices), or the cult associated with the worship of a particular god (meaning beliefs and practices pertaining to that god and his or her worship in specific, such beliefs might be very widespread or might be highly localized), or you might talk about a mystery cult, which is pretty much by definition a widespread phenomenon distinguished by the fact that it has secret teachings unknown to non-initiates.

But none of those senses convey any special devotion in comparison to ordinary worship; most of them are ordinary worship.

These days the preferred (I hate to call it "politically correct") term for what used to be called a "cult" is NRM: new religious movement. Cult is reserved for the minority that are actually deranged, coercive, and dangerous.

Of course, part of the problem is that there are concentric rings, increasingly toxic as one goes higher/closer-in. The outer ring is full of gullible normies who do recruiting and PR, useful idiots who have no idea what's really going on.

The dangerous organizations were called "destructive cults" (which suggested the existence of non-destructive ones) in the 80's, but people gradually stopped using the adjective, generalizing it too far.

> A membership community with secrets and opportunities reserved for members.

Yeah, but the exact type of "secrets and opportunities" matters. Sometimes (as mentioned in the article) the secret opportunity is a surprise nonconsensual sex with the group leader.

It's the nature of those secrets though, isn't it. A small professional organization that keeps a secret list of member reviews of different workplaces, managers, etc is not the same as an organization that keeps occult beliefs a secret, or hides sex trafficking.

It was more like the 70s. High profile stories included mass suicide at the People's Temple led by Jim Jones [1], Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh collecting Rolls Royces and sexual favours from followers, and of course Charles Manson.

[1] Origin of the phrase "Drink the Kool-Aid". More than 900 people did, and died.

Point being cults are not just a club with a few secrets.

Cults are dangerous. They abuse people physically, sexually, psychologically, and financially, and the leaders reliably scam and exploit the followers. Not infrequently there are links to unusually horrific events such as mass murder and mass suicide.

Jesus Christ dude, they're led by a man who routinely sexually assaults people. Being permissive about that is pretty damning. Kooky beliefs are one thing, but cults combine those with oppressive social structures. It's not that hard unless you're stuck in the middle of one with all it's filtering.

So, like Tesla and SpaceX.

Actually interested - are there multiple allegations against EM other than the recently reported horse-for-handjob offer?

Only one accusation:

https://www.dailyadvent.com/news/45a9223a5a878bd90c386109e55...

There are also consistent allegations of an abusive culture at both SpaceX and Tesla:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/05/tesla-sex...

https://www.businessinsider.com/former-spacex-engineer-inter...

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/14/22835181/tesla-lawsuit-s...

How different is a cult from a corporation, really?

Having recovered from a high demand religion (which can be considered a modern cult depending on the definition), cults are very different from corporations.

I feel like the best definition of a cult is any group that won't let you dissociate with your dignity intact. Most corporations are fine with that. Some aren't. So this suggests substantial differences.

I don't see that as a good definition of a cult

To be fair, it's a lived experience that I have found among other cult and high demand religion recoverers.

I believe that it's a common feature amongst a large portion of cults, but my scepticism arises at the use of it as a broad definition of what is or isn't one.

The same way you wouldn't say having a charismatic leader is the definition of what a cult is. It's certainly an aspect of most cults, but not the definition, nor unique to cults

That's okay. People have to draw lines to define things. I found the definition I provided above to be sufficient to my experience.

The similarities keep piling up! Google was co-founded by Sergey Brin, who insisted it was okay to screw his employees in the company massage room because "they're my employees".

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/valley-of-genius-exc...

Thank you for this. I’ve lost (fatally) a dear friend to a polyamorous relationship between herself and her direct manager + manager’s wife at Google.

I’m not trying to claim it’s endemic at Google, I truly have no idea. But mini cults can happen inside corporations.

Fatally?

Yes. I can’t go into more detail without committing libel. But Mountain View police ruled it a “death by natural causes” without bothering to look at GPS history of the last people she was with (staying with late at night) just moments before. It was a very unusual way to die by natural cause, and she chose a very curious mode of transportation given other modes of hers that she had available to her where she was.

The point wasn’t so much the death as it was that generally sexual relations between a boss and a direct report shouldn’t usually be any type of acceptable in a healthy workplace.

No judgement on Poly/ ENM / whatever.

The death merely was my motivation for being passionate about this recurring theme I keep hearing from reports within Google of entanglements between direct reports and management (and sometimes others, like the spouses of management or their other mistresses).

Sexually assaulting people just like Catholic priests or Southern Baptists ministers.

You should look at sexual abuse at public schools if you're interested in the topic

“…they didn't consider it something that needed to be secret… They clearly don't consider themselves to be in any way toxic like the author thinks they are.”

so if a guy says “I’m going to rape you” it means he doesn’t think his behavior is toxic? because he’s open about it? brilliant logic

Obviously it is wrong to influence hiring/firing or purchasing decisions. But do you think there are grounds for removing cults in a general sense from a company? Surely it is an aspect of people private lives in the same way that religion is.

Nepotism and special vendor contracts are most definitely negatives to google business. On top of that they're losing access to good talent.

Any sane company does not want to be related to an organization where grooming, sex trafficking and rape are encouraged and practiced, I would think. That seems like more than enough reason to me.

Companies don't like alternate or parallel authority structures inside the organization. This is why there are anti-fraternization rules, for example, because it can be abused.

you wouldn't want another competing company operating within your company, would you?

cults are pretty much corporations that aren't ashamed of their authoritarianism, with a few religious themes sprinkled in

This explains so much about google

Not really... I love to bash Google as much as anyone but a religious cult within a department within a massive corporation doesn't really mean much about the company as a whole. Especially when you could pretty clearly see the difference between cult's teachings and the public stances for women's rights and for same-sex marriages that many Google employees have taken.

A modern religious ethnographer would distinguish between NRMs (new religious movements) and the minority thereof that are actually criminal, coercive, etc., as the term "cult" has come to imply. That said, NRMs aren't always free of toxicity. Pyramid schemes and actual cults often target them, exploiting a high-trust network of people considered to be gullible.

The typical corporate "cult"--I don't think Google is any more or less toxic than any other company at this point, and the true cult is capitalism itself, not a specific company--is somewhere between NRMs and actual cults in terms of virulence. Companies have displaced communities in modern life and yet they frequently un-person people for economic or petty political reasons. That said, executives usually prefer to keep their child sex abuse and their economic exploitation in different buildings--and, if Epstein is any indicator, on different landmasses--so, there's that, at least.

Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that the FoF falls under the more pejorative sense of cult, rather than NRM, given the central role of leadership and the abuses of power. It seems distinct from, say, neo-paganism in that sense.

If you're referring to the parent comment's description of Google, then there's really no point in trying to make a distinction, since they were using it as a polemic anyways. That said, I don't think describing capitalism as the cult is necessarily useful either, in that it implies a reliance on _active_ belief and conscious performance of rituals which doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to me that the more useful framework is Fisher's capitalist realism, which more accurately describes this neoliberal end of history that inspires so much pessimism (and a more Foucaultian sense of power which is pervasive and defines the discursive space, rather than religious, which identifies a moral power within entities). Regardless, theorizing endlessly on capitalism is probably not going to solve actual issues of corporate overreach and abuses of power, so it's infinitely easier to just call Google a cult and hope it shifts public opinion and motivates political action lmao.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com