Globally white people are about 10% of the population, so I'd expect 1 in 10 people in a representative sample to be white, which feels about right for much of Google's marketing material.
For all intents and purposes, women count as minorities. Google has plenty of pictures with white women, and white men and women. But so far I have only found one picture with a lone white male (on one of the chromecast pages, on the TV was a show page, and the show page had a lone white male). I guess they can get 1/2 credit for that. Oh and I found a picture of a lone white guy, but he was disabled. So I guess that technically counts, although he would still fall into the "minority/disadvantaged" camp.
Took about 2 minutes.
ETA: He's also deaf, fwiw, with regard to the minority point.
ETA2: Hmm, I may be wrong about the exact details. It looks like he's a research scientist at Google, and, judging by the name, possibly Russian. But the same non-Caucasian non-''white'' point applies. (The Spanish voiceover and subtitles confused me - it's not his voice at the start, whereas his own 'deaf voice' makes any accent hard to identify.)
That interesting diversion notwithstanding, I think his being deaf is probably what accounts for his inclusion, which is consistent with the spirit of what that person was saying.
https://www.blog.google/press/ (filter for headshots)
https://about.google/commitments/#responding_to_crises
https://crisisresponse.google/recovery-resilience/
https://grow.google/, https://grow.google/grow-your-career/, https://grow.google/grow-your-business/, https://grow.google/certificates/
https://learning.google/, https://learning.google/school/
https://www.android.com/enterprise/
https://careers.google.com/locations/seattle-kirkland-bellev...
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbfo3d7J3mB/, https://www.instagram.com/p/CZUlQ4OBDee/, https://twitter.com/Google/status/1524472870885339141, https://twitter.com/Google/status/1518607578376425474
This is just scratching the surface, I'm not gonna spend time clicking in to every blog post and article. Again, their target market is basically the entire world, and most people in the world (and the US) are not white men. So I would not expect the majority of pictures to be white men, and indeed they are not.
white passing *
src="https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/diversity.google/..." />
The rest of their marketing is not made up of employee photos, though. We would expect it to roughly reflect their target audience, and it does.
> to put it charitably
To put what charitably? What are we even talking about? I don't understand this conversation.
Respectfully, I think it's a bit dishonest that you've linked to one very specific subpage for one specific office in Seattle, presumably the one page you found which contained a lot of white people.
I'm not sure if I even need to write any more, because the fact that you needed to do that demonstrates my point probably better than I can.
But, to say the obvious, have a look at their root careers page (I think that's a good "nothing-up-my-sleeve URL", so to speak): https://careers.google.com
> To put what charitably?
Well, the phrase immediately surrounding that one in my comment: "their marketing graphics bely those [i.e. 53%-white] demographics".
(To be clear, I don't say this with any racist intent. I'm just allergic to insincerity. Whatever one's political commitments, it's plain – to anyone who hasn't completely subordinated their critical faculties to some or other ideological dogma – that Google's photos make great play of their few minority ethnic staff, more than would an equally-large set of random samples from their 53%-white staff. It reminds me of my sister (who's mixed-race, as I am) being summoned whenever her china-white private girls' school was taking photos. My own - hers was our sister school - mustn't've deemed me sufficiently dark..)
Where's Waldo: 2022 Edition.