What Google as a profit-seeking corporation does is not the same as the majority internal political culture amongst its employees.

And what Google does, as one of the largest profit-seeking corporations in the world, matters a lot more than the views of its employees, and is not particularly affected by them.

So Google is a ' left to far left' company except when it's being 'right to far right' sometimes?

1) Yes, it's a giant company that does many things.

2) The thread is about the majority political position of its employees. This is entire separate from the actions as a corporation.

3) Many of things Google does that people think are "right-wing" have nothing to do with left-vs-right at all.

> Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left.

1) Completely contradicts what you said earlier above

2) How? When does it stop being people and start being a corp? Aren't the decisions made by employees?

3) So? You just linked 'diversity' to left and far-left, isn't that the same thing that started this side thread? How is that site linked with activism or left politics? You mentioned a "pretty clear" connection.

Obviously nothing is absolute, that doesn't make anything contradictory.

The majority political stance is left/far-left. The company is massive and sometimes will do things people consider right-wing, but usually those things are not actually "right-wing" but just normal behavior of a giant corporation seeking to maximize profit and shareholder value.

Corporations and capitalism are not antithetical to left-wing politics.

If Google were calling for the nationalization of major industries and a radical leveling of wealth, then I might call them "far-left." But being vaguely LGBT-friendly or talking about diversity is pretty centrist, maybe a bit socially liberal.

> Corporations and capitalism are not antithetical to left-wing politics.

Fuck I didn't realize I actually like capitalism whoops.

Wikipedia:

> The term was later applied to a number of movements, ... socialism, communism, anarchism and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries.

This is the funniest thing I've read all week thanks.

Would you please not post ideological battle-style comments that take HN threads further into flamewar? Those lead to scorched earth, and we're trying for something different than that here.

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

Your account has also posted thoughtful comments that have contributed to good conversation. That is good.

You just linked 'diversity' to left and far-left, isn't that the same thing that started this side thread? How is that site linked with activism or left politics? You mentioned a "pretty clear" connection.

I could just as easily say it's a decision for the economics of the company and you're projecting your own politics into that, confusing capitalism with left/right? But you know your example is a political decision pushed by the company? The same company that sometimes pushes the opposite political message? You're assertions are lacking consistency

"Diversity" based on identity politics and physical characteristics (race, gender, skin color) is a left-wing position. Hiring the best people for the job is a universal capitalistic non-political position.

Is your counter argument that this "diversity" is also part of the right-wing party?

> "Diversity" based on identity politics and physical characteristics (race, gender, skin color) is a left-wing position.

It's actually a centrist neoliberal capitalist position; the left-wing positions sees neoliberal identity politics and checklist-diversity catering to it as a tool of the capitalist class to distract from economic justice issues. (There are left-wing identity politics, but they aren't focussed on diversity, they are focussed on addressing the unique economic and social justice issues facing particular identity communities as well as the more general cross-cutting issues facing the working and under class as a whole.)

In the US neoliberal identity politics might seem like a relatively left-wing position only because the two major political parties consist of one that ranges from Right to Far Right and one that ranges from Center-Right neoliberal capitalist to the moderate Left of Democratic socialism, with the dominant faction being (clearly until the current election cycle, and by all indications still though less solidly now) firmly planted in the center-right neoliberal capitalist camp.

No my counter is that the Google site posted above which started this has very little in common with "radical left identity politics"

A survey in the last year or two of Silicon Valley execs found them to be very left in just about every category except for financial regulation and taxation.

Yes. I think Google (and others) are selectively leftist.

Sort of like Bill Gates on taxing billionaires.

If they lean left, they get love from the media. But when it's really, really against their self-interest they'll resist and show their true colors.

It's just corporate hypocrisy. I hope it ends and corporations go back to being apolitical.

I think it's beyond Left and Right. Google, like most companies and individuals, is self interested. When something benefits Google, they'll pursue it, regardless of where it falls on the ideological spectrum.

Unions? That's bad for business owners, so Google is against. Diversity? That increases the number of workers you can have, so Google is in favor of it. Immigration? Google's in favor, for the same reason. More taxes on tech companies? Google's against, etc.

There is not a serious unionization effort for them to fight. The activists are just making themselves out to be victims, as usual.