Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexryan | Hacker News Reader

I think you might be missing the bigger picture. 5 years ago these views would not have found any traction because nearly everyone loved Google. The general level of hatred in the community towards Google has increased significantly in that time. In my estimation this is due entirely to Google's own behavior since Sundar Pichai became CEO. When your CEO has an inability to resolve conflict in the direction of positive sum solutions, the losers of the zero sum game are going to hate you intensely and will certainly not come to your defense when you are attacked.

View on HN

I honestly doubt that any other CEO would have made any difference.

Google's business model is fundamentally based on data mining as much as possible about their users, and what's changed in the past couple years is (a) a much greater awareness of the potential negative consequences of this data collection and (b) the sense that the American internet giants are becoming unstoppable juggernauts.

The hate against Google was inevitable.

There is truth to this. I would suggest, however, that it is at least theoretically possible to maintain good will and strong relationships with the community, even as your power grows, so long as the bonds of trust are rock solid. The most effective way I know to do that is to refuse to contribute to the polarization and by always choosing to be on the side of the win-win solution.

By firing James Damore, by allowing YouTube videos to be demonetized for holding the wrong opinions, etc. Sundar Pichai has destroyed the bonds of trust. It takes backbone to stand up to the ideologically possessed who are determined to play the zero sum game and to persuade them that their needs can be more sustainably met by other means. Sundar Pichai has no backbone! Nobody has any respect for a weak leader who habitually chooses the easiest path without regard to the long term consequences.

Sorry, but I think this is complete BS. Sundar Pichai was put into an absolute no-win situation with the James Damore issue. While I agree a lot of the reaction to Damore's "manifesto" seemed knee-jerk and groupthink, I absolutely think that anyone with half an ounce of emotional intelligence should have anticipated that reaction, and should have known that writing that as he did would have been completely counter-productive and cause a huge shit show for the company.

Do you honestly believe that if Pichai had kept Damore around that it would have engendered good relationships with "the community"? If so I hate to break to you but "the community" is a lot more than people who think like you.

Uncomfortable situations can be perceived as “no-win” situations or as “huge opportunities” depending on what your aim is and how committed you are to achieving it. It could have been used as an opportunity to show the world how to resolve the polarization that plagues us by forcing the 2 sides to talk until a mutually acceptable resolution was achieved and the team could unify in support of a mission of contribution instead of turning against each other. The ability to bring people together is what makes you are leader. Even if you were on the winning side of the zero sum game, you will never rest well if you have weak leader. A man who will easily bend to the will of a handful of radical feminists is unlikely suddenly grow a backbone when facing a much stronger opponent like Donald Trump.

> Google's business model is fundamentally based on data mining

You see, the point is, it doesn’t have to be.

Not without being a completely different company. Google earns 90 percent of its revenue from advertising, and the amount they would be able to earn would go down significantly if they weren't able to provide highly granular targeting info to their advertisers.

Saying "the point is, it doesn't have to be" is like saying "Apple doesn't have to be a designed-focused company." True, they don't have to be, but they are, and that is a huge reason they are successful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com