This might be how you and many people think society operates. Unfortunately that’s a dangerous delusion. This reductionist argument is dehumanizing and casts the issuer in an unearned air of superiority.
Exhibit A. Trump is likely to be the most shamed person in existence and is to this date entirely unrepentant.
The fact that shaming has appeared to work on some in his mafia cannot be intelligently construed as evidence for the effectiveness of shame as a tool to correct behavior without controlling for confounding factors which has not be done with any serious rigor on a societal level.
I don't think anyone should come to understand the nature of an organization by arbitrary outsiders.
A lot of it is going to be hearsay.
That said, I'm inclined to believe most of it, and least the 'gist' of it.
I wouldn't be so fully quick to judge either the cult and certainly not it's members either.
There are a lot of reasons people can be involved.
And many of those reasons can be positive, even if the system or it's leaders are corrupt.
I think it's mostly safe to assume the group is probably a cult in the 'bad sense', but not without accepting that there is going to be a lot of grey there.
Also, man, Cali.
It's like Florida but with more education and money so the 'funny business' is just like a different form.
Maybe Google has too much money, and possibly not a strong a cultural foundation as it needs.
The author linked to a ton of external evidence, articles, and even podcasts about the cult. It’s not like the author is making up potential fiction
Has there been an investigation, charges?
What happened? When? To whom?
Objectively.
You are using the word 'evidence' when there isn't really any yet - I'm indicating 'we don't really know' a lot about this.
'The Leaders Spent Money on Lavish Things' is worse than evidence, because it's an emotional appeal. Canadian Diplomats just spent $100K on just liquor for a single flight overseas. I'm sure Brin/Page and their billions have bought a few toys.
It's 'Patriarchal' and 'White Supremacist'? Is that an allegation or evidence? Because those words are used a lot these days.
The author clearly had a bit of a breakdown - and for what reason? Because people 'belonging to some group' worked with him?
Were they harassing him? Doing nefarious things? Acting unprofessionally towards others? Trying to press people into the group? Shaming others?
It doesn't seem that way.
It seems like the author reacted in a way that others didn't seem to need to, for some unknown reason.
People are laid off all the time - how do we know he was let go because he indicated there was a 'cult' in Google? What were the circumstances?
'Cliques' happen all over the place, it's not uncommon at all. Maybe a 'flag' to notice, but not otherwise.
And especially - what relation do members have to the leadership who where there seem to be serious allegations?
i.e. what did the English Teacher know about the Choirmaster fondling the kids? Where they involved? Looking the other way? Were victims then participating in victimizing others? Did people take preacautions? Was it bad apples, systematic? What is being done at the school?
... because weird things happen.
I witnessed a high school teacher run off with a student - odd, but legal and technically consensual.
Hey, it's Cali, some people have orgies, it's not a new thing. Some people run around naked in the desert on Labour Day Week/Weekend and some of them have group sex in a weird pyramid looking building, I know this because I (accidentally) witnessed it myself, at Burning Man, an event that many Googlers attend. Does that make them 'Cult Members'? Was someone pressed into the orgy? Were they on drugs? Does that count as 'consent'? What if they consented, but given the nature of the org they were apart of, changes that nature? And then felt ashamed afterwards?
Or maybe someone straight up raped someone?
Sergei Brin is known to have had sex with staffers, on Google Campus. [1]
Does that make him an evil cult leader? I mean, consensual sex in the context of 'power imbalance' changes the nature of consent?
How does that behaviour implicate other Googlers? And leaders? Was there an investigation?
I have some experience looking the nature of 'cults' and I believe they are usually misrepresented - for better and worse - I'm not being defensive of them, other than to say the documentarian narrative is usually a big hyperbole. It takes a big more effort to arrive at the truth.
Aside from people's odd but understandable reactions to them, I believe most 'rank and file' members of these odd groups to be generally good people, maybe, on average, actually much kinder than most people. But also very naive.
Again - the author clearly had a serious emotional reaction to his situation, and therefore, irrespective of the 'goings on', it's going to be hard to take that as a firmly reliable narrative.
And - while there are some serious allegations that I hope are investigated, these things are complicated, and it's I think wrong to start to throw people into the fire, especially those peripherally involved. Consider that they could also be victims.
I'm looking forward to more details, hopefully taken up by press with good capabilities and credentials.
[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/valley-of-genius-exc...
They are alleged to have engaged in nepotistic hiring practices, for which the director of GDS had been successfully sued once already.
"Cult" as a word is used so often that many folks can lose sight of how actual cults can be such a huge challenge for some individuals, as well as those people's former friends and family.
More precise terms are "high-demand group" or "high-demand movement."
A group of passionate people may naturally spent a lot of time together. But a "high-demand group" will require that its participants cut off relationships with others outside of the group, commit their finances, and take actions that intentionally cut off bridges to the rest of the world.
...whose members are protected, the same as other religious groups, against workplace discrimination by federal (and, in this case, separately also by state) law based on association, even if there are allegations, even “credible allegations”, and even proven wrongdoing by the organization (as distinct from the particular employees) itself.
While it probably won't always result in firing, going to coworkers to complain about the concentration of people of <religion> in the workplace and the fact that they contribute to <religion> and that also there have been allegations of wrongdoing made against <religion> in general which should result in extra suspicion of its members in the company, and also that <religion> is associated with <political viewpoint> and <political viewpoint> and also <political viewpoint> which adds extra suspicion... is rarely going to go well.
Modern religious cults are groups that use a whole host of well-known manipulative techniques to trap victims in insular groups which are then difficult to escape after the fact. Leaders of those groups directly abuse those victims physically and/or emotionally (and often drain their bank accounts as well).
This isn't, "My parents are worried about my work/life imbalance."
This is, "My parents are evil and only the leader can keep me from straying again."
While it's mildly interesting that "cult" has a namespace clash with "clique" as well as whatever paranoia 80s moms had about D&D, those things aren't what this article is describing. If you have trouble discerning the difference, please go watch one of the myriad documentaries on Scientology.
Edit: clarification