> I'm curious what their continued involvement will look like.

Page and Brin, combined, are currently the majority shareholders of alphabet. Each controls 27% of the voting power ( 54% combined ). They are still in charge. They just won't be involved in the day-to-day operation of the company. Sundar will still report to Page/Brin and the board of directors.

Honestly, there’s so much drama and turmoil there, I wouldn’t want to be there either. So many other productive things they could be doing.

Care to elaborate for the uninitiated ?

Why is this being downvoted? Now it's flagged. This is ridiculous.

I think burying a comment may lend it some validity. Critiquing it is a better method of understanding or correcting it. Here's a censored version:

Founders: Bring your whole selves to work.

Employees: great!

That one guy: what a relief, because I’m literally an unpopular-party member.

Everybody: no. Leave that part at home.

Guy: my rights are being trampled by a popular-party conspiracy!

Other person: my unique identity is the most important aspect of large-scale software development. Anyone who disagrees must be fired.

Everyone: that doesn’t seem all that relevant, actually.

Person: my rights are being trampled by a majority identity conspiracy!

Everyone: frustration

Because it's an extremely dishonest take on a highly political issue.

Isn't the more appropriate response to respond to the comment rather than downvote it? It doesn't seem to be a personal attack, or some other violation of the community guidelines.

I'm not a moderator, but IMO, it was absolutely a violation of community guidelines. It was incredibly snarky, flamebaity, and was obviously written to start a political battle.

The fact that it got flagged shows I'm definitely not alone in this thinking.

I suppose it did push some readers' buttons, thus ipso facto is flamebait whether or not that was the intent. I did not find it snarky (hyperbole is not snark), and it seemed to me its intent was to explain the situation as the author saw it. Of course, now that it's flagged I can't even re read it to check if my initial impression was off.

You can read flagged/dead comments by turning on "showdead" on your profile/settings page.

False: you can't if you're browsing the site anonymously.

This is funny, downvoted for writing the truth...

It is impossible for anonymous readers to open dead comments.

If it is not, please explain me how to do it

I wasn't one of your downvoters. (As you may know, you can't downvote a direct reply to your own comment.) But I think I know why your comment was downvoted.

greesil wrote: "now that it's flagged I can't even re read it"

I replied: "You can read flagged/dead comments by turning on 'showdead' on your profile/settings page."

You then replied: "False: you can't if you're browsing the site anonymously."

Now ask yourself, who was the "you" I addressed in my comment? Obviously greesil, and by extension other logged-in users like yourself.

I wasn't talking to, or talking about, anonymous readers. I never said they could read dead comments. They don't have profile pages! The discussion had nothing to do with anonymous readers until you brought them up out of the blue and incorrectly called my comment "false".

I thought comments downvoting or flagging was based on the content, not on grammar.

Anyway, I had to login with my phone to comment and read the dead comment, at work I go through a corporate firewall that strips all the unnecessary headers, so I can't stay logged in on HN and I can't read dead comments.

So maybe that you should have been an "I".

I'm not an anonymous reader, but during the day I'm forced to be one.

BTW anonymous readers are probably not an irrelevant number, they still are users and they still count.

Your answer was not entirely wrong, but it was incomplete, hence not true or false.

Don't take it personally.

It's like assuming that everybody speaks a perfect English, it's false.

Not even native English speakers are immune to errors.

I would consider hyperbole worse than snark, when considering if a post has value under the site guidelines.

I disagree, despite how much the hyperbolic posts I see on this site annoy me.

Assuming good faith, hyperbole is at worst intellectually lazy. It is, however, sometimes a useful rhetorical device.

Snark, on the other hand, is directly disrespectful of the content it is replying to. This signals that the snarker is not going to discuss the subject in good faith and disincentivizes further discussion.

I'm just giving you the straight dope on a few aspects of the organizational disaster that is google. The fact that you think it's incredible etc just shows what a basket case this company is.

If you want to give "straight dope" on a controversial issue, you don't do it by caricature without evidence.

Instead you present incontrovertible evidence that proves your point.

Evidence wasn't hard to find though...

https://www.wired.com/story/the-dirty-war-over-diversity-ins...

Then this should have been the comment.

But this article isn't evidence of Google having a liberal orthodoxy. It supports instead the claim that Google is a politically charged workplace, and that diversity advocates working at Google were facing harassment.

> Then this should have been the comment.

I simply noticed that it took literally a single search on Google to get to know about it.

Not trying to defend the OP.

> But this article isn't evidence of Google having a liberal orthodoxy

Or the opposite, if literally members of unpopular party work there and have that kind of power.

It supports the poster thesis (phrased in a provocative way) that this kind of issues are not unknown at Google, either one way or the other.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crenshaw-calls-googl...

I guess the part of the original comment (now dead) that says (quoting)

> That one guy: what a relief, because I’m literally a Nazi.

> Everybody: no. Leave that part at home.

> Guy: my rights are being trampled by a liberal conspiracy!

is exposed here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/google-sued-bias-clai...

> Because it's an extremely dishonest take on a highly political issue

It is also plausible.

Burying the head in the sand to avoid getting political is part of the problem, not of the solution.

“cofounder” isn't “what you're doing now”; it's “what you did 20 years ago” but it's important because people put weight on what the founders say and think. “[large] shareholder” is sort of a role, and often goes together with “member of the board”.

Bill Gates is probably a good example to look to. He also stayed on the board (as chair) and remained a large shareholder, and was looked up to as the cofounder. So I'd imagine “like Bill Gates but with less active interest and involvement”.

The difference here is that Page and Brin have always been willing to give up the CEO seat i.e. day to day operations.

They're 100% still in control of direction and people will always treat them as the boss (esp voting power), but the dynamic will not have nearly as much friction.

Page and Brin have been out of the big picture for a long time.

> For a while after Bill Gates stepped down as CEO, there was this awkward tension where Steve Balmer was CEO

Bill was simply playing politics.