There is no point taking a risk if there is no reward. I just don't see this as an action that would change people's minds.
I just believe Google has much better avenues for advocacy than this approach.
I would be surprised if this is noticed by the national media.
A company isn't just a profit machine. People live and work there to a degree. He probably saw some injustices in his company, and wanted to make a strong statement about how employees should be treated.
The reward is equal treatment for our gay brothers and sisters. The reward is doing the right thing, even if it means profits go down, not that I think they will. Are we so blinded by success and money here that we can't see a "reward" in helping a fellow human being?
Unfortunately, the law says that the Google Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If they decide to use the company in a way that is damaging to their shareholders' interests, they can be sued.
Securities laws were introduced about eight decades ago to protect the small investor. The concern was that the small investor had little control over the actions of a company. Therefore, he had to be protected from the possibility that the managers might take his capital and use it for their own private purposes. The law makes no judgment about whether those private purposes are base or noble. If you want to sell shares to large amounts of people, then you are constrained by law to act in their best interest.
Privately supporting equality for our gay brothers and sisters is one thing. Repurposing a publicly-held web services company to do so is quite another.
I didn't make the previous statement but I don't think that is what was meant. The point is that shareholder laws state that the purpose of the company is to make money for all shareholders, not to push a social agenda. A company can take a stand on issues but when profit and social issues collide the company is bound to follow profit.
Of course they could also pour millions into campaigns. But I don't see why they should have to - they chose to make that statement in their blog, and maybe prefer to spend the millions on other things. What is wrong with that?
To have a position from which dissent is not tolerated is the definition of PC. Hence the "correct" part of PC.
Once you escape the bubble that is Hacker News you find an extremely large population of religious people that are for prop 8.
So you have large populations for and against. Thus, either position is strongly supported and opposed, there is no correct position that will not be assaulted. Google didn't post on Hacker News, they posted on a public blog.
Don't question the mob. The mob is always right.