Shaun Maguire could't be promoted for being white, at Google | Hacker News Reader

Shaun Maguire could't be promoted for being white, at Google

twitter.com

43 pointsneverrroot49 comments

“I’m really not supposed to tell you this. It could get me fired.

But you’re one of the highest performing people here but I can’t promote you right now because I have a quota. My hands are tied. You’ll get the next slot. Please be patient. I’m really sorry.”

— Google

https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1760885099984261564

So, where's the actual story?

I don't use X so maybe it's buried somewhere else.

Even the tweet you mentioned wasn't directly discoverable from the submission.

But it looks like he already tweeted months ago that this had happened.

What's actually new info now?

> FYI this was just my teaser story… not even close to the worst of it

https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1760908574870368513

Okay, let's see then I guess?

I guess this HN submission was just a teaser as well then. Maybe another one will reveal something actually interesting.

Exactly why I flagged. I am interested in hearing the story, not the teaser to the story.

Google, internally, is pretty up front that there's a forced distribution (or quota) for performance ratings and promotions. It's for budgetary reasons, and it's not strictly enforced, but it's published and often referred to. Past a certain level, a business justification is also needed in addition to merit.

The quota the manager was referring to was very likely that.

Google is one of the most important companies in the IT sector. This being HN, there’s a legitimate interest in bringing this out. Also, I have searched HN for similar posts from the past, there are such posts, that are not flagged.

Was he radicalised into supporting Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate by this experience or has he always been that kind of guy?

According to his LinkedIn, he didn't even work at Google.

I'd say he's just another alt right drama queen.

His LinkedIn literally says he worked at Google Ventures.

I’d say you’re just not very good at reading comprehension.

Ah, I didn’t see that, you’re right.

Still a drama queen tho.

Google Ventures, not Google. That probably seems like a nitpick but they separated almost a decade ago. He's an okay-ish VC on a ladder with few rungs, not a mid-level software engineer who got passed over for L6.

If the company can promote others but not the one who performs enough for the promotion, then it's a clear signal:

performance is not an important factor for promotion anymore.

Which explains the ridiculously bad performance of their products. And getting worse everyday.

What I don’t understand is why do startups and other upcoming competitors not use this to their advantage?

Google’s loss is your gain. If they are pushing DEI, won’t you as a startup then gain for hiring based on meritocracry?

This is why you should probably record every meeting you have with your boss about performance. Imagine if he had gotten this on tape, saying that I'm sorry it's because you're white, I can't promote you. That's a great lawsuit.

Saying they have a quota doesn't mean "because you are white".

I mean, it has a similar effect but it's not like we don't know quotas exist and are largely tolerated, are they not? Are quotas outright illegal in the US?

Do we know it was a racial quota? Now, gender quota would still not be better for the author but this is still lacking in novelty.

Yes, Quotas are illegal in the USA.

This is why I'm not even considering migrating my OpenAI usage to Gemini.

OpenAI has already replaced ~95% of Google Search for me.

This company is rotting from inside, perpetrating racism, creating societal divide, disrespecting human values, and delivering sub-par products.

Our grandfathers literally died to end this kind of shit. And these 21th century clowns want to bring it back.

Amazing how this gets flagged and falls off the front page…

I have no idea how this stuff works, do you know?

I flagged it because when I click on the link I see:

> @shaunmmaguire > Fuck it, > This happened at Google > That company is an absolute trash can dumpster fire

And that is it. If there is more content there, it is behind a sign in wall.

Just opened the link in all browsers I have, without being logged in on X in any of them.

There is on all of them a quoted tweet clearly and completely visible. That quoted tweet/post reads: “Should I go public with the story about the time I was told I can’t be promoted for being a white man?”

List of browsers I tried:

- Firefox, Chromium under Linux

- Safari, Chromium under macOS

- Firefox, Safari and embedded browser( inside of HACK app) on iOS/iPhone

- Firefox, Chrome on Android

What am I supposed to gain from those 2 tweets? Not the actual story behind either of those people's proclamation. Hence, the flag. If there was a blog post or story accessible to the public, I would not have flagged.

This is the source of the truth, it’s the place where the statement that could be covered by a hypothetical blog post or story would be coming from.

It’s also the post that lies beyond the title of this post on HN. Really, I don’t know what would beat the linked content: it’s the source of the statement.

I flag this under the HN FAQ Entry.

> Are paywalls ok?

> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

It is a primary source, not a source of truth. I cannot access the content without logging into the site. I cannot get an archive link to the entire chain. I cannot use an extension to gain access to the content like NYT or WSJ. Nitter is gone. You originally wanted to know why people flagged the content. I have answered your question several times, the content is not accessible. X used to allow you to see the chain without a login, that was acceptable. I am sorry that the primary source decided to use X to distribute their content. I am not saying that the post is truthful or not, I am saying I flagged it because I cannot access the content.

The content is accessible. He just told you he tried multiple browsers, and they've shown the whole message without logging in. Is it not the same for you?

> Should I go public with the story about the time I was told I can’t be promoted for being a white man?

> Fuck it, This happened at Google That company is an absolute trash can dumpster fire

That is the whole thing?! I HAD to assume there was more. There is no context. Its an irate outcry. I stand by my flag. There is nothing here to discuss as there is no information provided besides someone saying "I didn't get promoted because I am white". That may or may not be true, but this is too vague to talk about here.

That’s the whole statement right there and it’s akin to many other linked but unflagged X posts: brief and without much context. If you want to see the context, you start digging. That’s how this stuff works, not only for my link.

But I see, now it’s not the paywall anymore, now it’s something else entirely.

No, the submission should provide the context. Also, this is not the whole statement like you just said. I know that because you posted other tweets from this user on this subject. You said this was the primary source... where do I go to get more information? Nowhere until he releases his story and not a teaser.

This is not the standard being applied to many Tweets/X Posts.

But you have the power over me and my posts on this platform, so have it your way.

I don't have power over you and it is not that serious. I am just trying to inform you why some people might flag something like this. There is no reason to argue with me with my explanation over my reason for flagging. It is my subjective opinion. You are entitled to yours, just as the rest of the community. Enough others appear to agree and have flagged. I know it can suck when there are a bunch of downvotes or flags without explanation. But at the same time, this is why people don't explain themselves. It is not worth it. I've now given over 15 minutes of my day to this when I could have ignored it all. I would have been better for it. You continue to cast yourself as a victim over this nonsense.

Well, it’s of course not important to you, since you are not being unfairly suppressed. I’ve grown sensitive to this kind of stuff, since it has exploded over the recent years and it has a clear bias.

Anyhow, fair point about your time. Thank you! I still have no idea how flagging works, thought you are the one person who flagged the post and thus removed it from the home page.

Btw, I am the victim in this case, wouldn’t you agree? You know why? As you can see in my first comment to this story I did some research on what is allowed on this platform, and I also think this post is at home here due to this being Google and given the target audience. But at the same time, I now know much better, that this is a strongly biased place, so I already adjusted my expectations.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39477929

The message is in its entirety accessible without logging in.

I also see a lot of unflagged links to X on HN that show the login prompt beneath them, just like this one might show it, but it’s beneath the post on X.

So I have to conclude that the reason for flagging my post might be a different one, but there is indeed a stipulations in the FAQ that you could base your flagging on. So you have the moral excuse to flag it, but don’t necessarily have the moral upper ground, because the post is entirely visible without logging in and there are cases of many unflagged links to X.

If you want me, I can upload screenshots to your place of choice to prove my claims made in the prior post

Why should anyone be promoted just because they're white?

That's just as wrong, and clearly not the case here.

The promotion was not done due to a "quota" in spite of him being "one of the highest performing people [there]".

The thread title, and indeed the quoted tweet, both make the same claim: "promoted for being white" and "I was told I can’t be promoted for being a white man". Nobody should be promoted just because they're white.

That is why he was not promoted, which does not imply, that that would have been the reason for him to be promoted. As you can clearly see, the performance was such, that he should have been promoted, but he wasn't for being white.

What do you think "promoted for being white" means?

Being promoted on the lone merit of being white, or while all else being equal (merit wise), with the only difference being the skin color (i.e. white over something else)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com