They make lots of money (the median salary at Google is nearly $250,000), enjoy beautiful offices, extraordinary perks, and an altruistic mission: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
That hasn’t stopped them from giving a big chunk of their 2020 presidential donations to candidates who’ve said they will break up big tech companies like Google and limit their power. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, candidates known for their grassroots support and who are leading the charge to break up Big Tech, received the highest number of donations out of all presidential candidates from Google employees.
But these tech workers don’t hate their jobs. In fact, they think breaking Google up would be good for it.
In interviews with Recode, Google employees (mostly engineers who work on everything from Android to virtual reality) who donated to Sanders and Warren said that breaking up Google could help consumers and spur more tech innovation by allowing for more competition from upstarts. Some even said they thought regulation could force Google itself to return to its startup roots, recreating the bootstrapped work culture that they say enabled the company’s initial success. (Google executives don’t exactly agree.)
“Save capitalism from itself” could be really popular in places we might not think of immediately
I think there are a lot of executives who would love a “reset” with investors...
Also a lot of tech workers who are tired of hearing how their bosses became billionaires through small start-ups in an age when monopolism makes that increasingly difficult, and exploded housing prices mean that even their gold-plated salary can't pay for a place to live.
“Save capitalism from itself” could be really popular in places we might not think of immediately
I think there are a lot of executives who would love a “reset” with investors...
Also a lot of tech workers who are tired of hearing how their bosses became billionaires through small start-ups in an age when monopolism makes that increasingly difficult, and exploded housing prices mean that even their gold-plated salary can't pay for a place to live.
They are also well-paid enough to have decent savings and the tech boom means that no-one is afraid of unemployment should they lose their job. This comfort allows them to support risk.
Also a Google breakup would make more space at the top of their little fiefdom. Advancement opportunities!
Call me naive but I think it's just because they're sensible people with heavy liberal leanings, who are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of thriving off of perpetuating a monopoly.
+17
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
I'm gonna call you pretty naive, but honestly applaude your faith in people, it speaks well of you.
Call me naive but I think it's just because they're sensible people with heavy liberal leanings, who are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of thriving off of perpetuating a monopoly.
From what I understand, tech sector tends to be less liberal and more libertarian, so wanting government action, especially something like trustbusting, is very much against type.
Then again, that distrust of regulation typically comes from not wanting petty morality red tape from getting in the way of innovation, and if they think the current Big 3 are getting in the way, they would probably be on board with breaking them up.
Call me naive but I think it's just because they're sensible people with heavy liberal leanings, who are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of thriving off of perpetuating a monopoly.
From what I understand, tech sector tends to be less liberal and more libertarian, so wanting government action, especially something like trustbusting, is very much against type.
Then again, that distrust of regulation typically comes from not wanting petty morality red tape from getting in the way of innovation, and if they think the current Big 3 are getting in the way, they would probably be on board with breaking them up.
I think there is definitely a fatigue of seeing your scrappy innovative tech space turn into GE, PG&E, and ATT
Especially if you didn't get any real equity while there.
Call me naive but I think it's just because they're sensible people with heavy liberal leanings, who are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of thriving off of perpetuating a monopoly.
From what I understand, tech sector tends to be less liberal and more libertarian, so wanting government action, especially something like trustbusting, is very much against type.
Then again, that distrust of regulation typically comes from not wanting petty morality red tape from getting in the way of innovation, and if they think the current Big 3 are getting in the way, they would probably be on board with breaking them up.
I think there is definitely a fatigue of seeing your scrappy innovative tech space turn into GE, PG&E, and ATT
Especially if you didn't get any real equity while there.
Honestly if you're a tech person in Seattle and don't live in a downtown apartment, the lack of quality internet service in the area alone is enough to turn you into a anti-trust supporter. But I know more than a few Amazon, Facebook and Google employees in the area that are not super enamored with their own companies.
Friend recently got hired on at Facebook, and apparently the average turnover rate is about a year right now. Getting people to stick around is very, very difficult for them at the moment. Said friend also doesn't even use Facebook. So :rotate:
So, Zuckerberg is talking about suing the government to preempt any efforts to break up Facebook if Warren is elected. Needless to say, she had a response for that:
I hear good things about Google as a place to work... Amazon and Facebook not so much.
Amazon also keeps sending recruiters after me, which concerns me as to their desperation, as while I am a coder, I’m in a completely different field.
Amazon is a very mixed environment. There are good stories and bad stories.
+3
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Zuck is such a greedy piece of shit.
Even if Facebook is forced to break apart its empire you'll still be a billionaire you fucking asshole! You've got more money than you can spend in a lifetime and you're using it to do evil things like steal Hawai'i away from its rightful native population!
Even if Facebook is forced to break apart its empire you'll still be a billionaire you fucking asshole! You've got more money than you can spend in a lifetime and you're using it to do evil things like steal Hawai'i away from its rightful native population!
It's beyond greed. Zuckerberg has spent his entire life making sure that he could be held accountable to nobody.
Even if Facebook is forced to break apart its empire you'll still be a billionaire you fucking asshole! You've got more money than you can spend in a lifetime and you're using it to do evil things like steal Hawai'i away from its rightful native population!
It's beyond greed. Zuckerberg has spent his entire life making sure that he could be held accountable to nobody.
He thinks he should rule the world. Any level of accountability is too much for him. Too bad he's relatively terrible at most things he touches.
Is there any good reason why facebook or any social media service should be centralized as opposed to providing a common platform for a united nation of providers?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Is there any good reason why facebook or any social media service should be centralized as opposed to providing a common platform for a united nation of providers?
The business model is that they use the data to sell ads. There's no point if it is a common dataset that the advertisers could get on their own.
Let's talk a bit about my plan to #BreakUpBigTech and why it's got Mark Zuckerberg so worked up.
Facebook is doing pretty well right now. They've acquired potential competitors WhatsApp and Instagram. More than 85% of all social networking traffic goes through sites owned or operated by Facebook. They've got a lot of power—and face little competition or accountability.
Zuckerberg himself said Facebook is “more like a government than a traditional company.” They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, undermined our democracy, and tilted the playing field against everyone else.
My plan to #BreakUpBigTech would undo their illegal, anticompetitive mergers. You'll still be able to use Facebook and Instagram to catch up with friends and family and share photos of your dog. But they'll have to compete with each other to make a better product for you.
Imagine Facebook and Instagram trying to outdo each other to protect your privacy and keep misinformation out of your feed, instead of working together to sell your data, inundate you with misinformation, and undermine our election security. That's why we need to #BreakUpBigTech.
Even if Instagram and Facebook were separate companies, why would they compete to "protect your privacy and keep misinformation out of your feed"? Like, people have shown that they don't actually care about that. Wouldn't they just sell your data and inundate you with misinformation separately? I assume she probably has actual regulations for that, too, I guess. I don't think she'd be that naiive.
who’d have thought a company that started out as a way to sexually harass women at scale would go to the mat not to be regulated by a woman really makes ya think
This is an excellent point - Facebook was built on sexism.
Even if Instagram and Facebook were separate companies, why would they compete to "protect your privacy and keep misinformation out of your feed"? Like, people have shown that they don't actually care about that. Wouldn't they just sell your data and inundate you with misinformation separately? I assume she probably has actual regulations for that, too, I guess. I don't think she'd be that naiive.
More importantly it's not about which has better features or whatever. It's about which one all your friends are on.
Which is why this whole plan is fundamentally flawed and misses the point. Nationalizing social media would be a better idea.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
who’d have thought a company that started out as a way to sexually harass women at scale would go to the mat not to be regulated by a woman really makes ya think
This is an excellent point - Facebook was built on sexism.
I disagree. Facebook is worth between 100 and 200 billion dollars--of course they'll "go to the mat" to fight a breakup in the courts. Does Mar Hicks think that if Bernie or Biden were to win and wind up pushing a breakup then Facebook would cooperate because they'd be willing to take it from a man? Taking the utterly pedestrian behavior of a large corporation under capitalism and using it as the grounds to spin yarns about Zuckerberg's personal politics or the original sins of techbro culture is inane.
(Similar points apply to Matt Yglesias slightly less spicy variation on the same theme).
who’d have thought a company that started out as a way to sexually harass women at scale would go to the mat not to be regulated by a woman really makes ya think
This is an excellent point - Facebook was built on sexism.
I disagree. Facebook is worth between 100 and 200 billion dollars--of course they'll "go to the mat" to fight a breakup in the courts. Does Mar Hicks think that if Bernie or Biden were to win and wind up pushing a breakup then Facebook would cooperate because they'd be willing to take it from a man? Taking the utterly pedestrian behavior of a large corporation under capitalism and using it as the grounds to spin yarns about Zuckerberg's personal politics or the original sins of techbro culture is inane.
(Similar points apply to Matt Yglesias slightly less spicy variation on the same theme).
The right also talked about breaking up Facebook, and yet Zuckerberg's response was quite different to them (which is part of the problem.) Why is it "inane" to suggest that Zuckerberg's argument, while in line with corporate behavior, could also be fueled by the toxic stew of sexism and misogyny in the tech industry - that Warren makes for a particularly irksome regulator because of her gender.
who’d have thought a company that started out as a way to sexually harass women at scale would go to the mat not to be regulated by a woman really makes ya think
This is an excellent point - Facebook was built on sexism.
I disagree. Facebook is worth between 100 and 200 billion dollars--of course they'll "go to the mat" to fight a breakup in the courts. Does Mar Hicks think that if Bernie or Biden were to win and wind up pushing a breakup then Facebook would cooperate because they'd be willing to take it from a man? Taking the utterly pedestrian behavior of a large corporation under capitalism and using it as the grounds to spin yarns about Zuckerberg's personal politics or the original sins of techbro culture is inane.
(Similar points apply to Matt Yglesias slightly less spicy variation on the same theme).
The right also talked about breaking up Facebook, and yet Zuckerberg's response was quite different to them (which is part of the problem.) Why is it "inane" to suggest that Zuckerberg's argument, while in line with corporate behavior, could also be fueled by the toxic stew of sexism and misogyny in the tech industry - that Warren makes for a particularly irksome regulator because of her gender.
Can you point me to a source for this? I was aware of right wing complaints about supposed censorship on the news feed, and demands that something be done about it, but unaware of any right wing proposals to break up the company per se.
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
who’d have thought a company that started out as a way to sexually harass women at scale would go to the mat not to be regulated by a woman really makes ya think
This is an excellent point - Facebook was built on sexism.
I disagree. Facebook is worth between 100 and 200 billion dollars--of course they'll "go to the mat" to fight a breakup in the courts. Does Mar Hicks think that if Bernie or Biden were to win and wind up pushing a breakup then Facebook would cooperate because they'd be willing to take it from a man? Taking the utterly pedestrian behavior of a large corporation under capitalism and using it as the grounds to spin yarns about Zuckerberg's personal politics or the original sins of techbro culture is inane.
(Similar points apply to Matt Yglesias slightly less spicy variation on the same theme).
The right also talked about breaking up Facebook, and yet Zuckerberg's response was quite different to them (which is part of the problem.) Why is it "inane" to suggest that Zuckerberg's argument, while in line with corporate behavior, could also be fueled by the toxic stew of sexism and misogyny in the tech industry - that Warren makes for a particularly irksome regulator because of her gender.
The right were doing that because they wanted Facebook to treat them more favorably, something Zuckerberg is happy to do if it will temporarily shut them up. Warren is proposing real regulatory and anti-trust action and isn't going to be convinced to do otherwise by anything Zuckerberg would be willing to do on that front. If you're a criminal and you're dealing with a crooked cop you can bribe them, if you're dealing with an honest one you lawyer up. This really isn't that different.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
who’d have thought a company that started out as a way to sexually harass women at scale would go to the mat not to be regulated by a woman really makes ya think
This is an excellent point - Facebook was built on sexism.
I disagree. Facebook is worth between 100 and 200 billion dollars--of course they'll "go to the mat" to fight a breakup in the courts. Does Mar Hicks think that if Bernie or Biden were to win and wind up pushing a breakup then Facebook would cooperate because they'd be willing to take it from a man? Taking the utterly pedestrian behavior of a large corporation under capitalism and using it as the grounds to spin yarns about Zuckerberg's personal politics or the original sins of techbro culture is inane.
(Similar points apply to Matt Yglesias slightly less spicy variation on the same theme).
The right also talked about breaking up Facebook, and yet Zuckerberg's response was quite different to them (which is part of the problem.) Why is it "inane" to suggest that Zuckerberg's argument, while in line with corporate behavior, could also be fueled by the toxic stew of sexism and misogyny in the tech industry - that Warren makes for a particularly irksome regulator because of her gender.
The right talked about breaking up Facebook because they wanted to push their conservative persecution bullshit, and since it's bullshit, it can easily be deflected with more bullshit, and it was.
What Warren wants isn't bullshit, and doesn't originate in bad faith. It is borne of facts. And she has a track record of being more than just threatening talk. That requires a much different response. Do you have any doubts that she'll try and break up Facebook? Or at least push for compromise that still fucks them pretty good?
You may be right that his sexism plays into it, or Facebook's sexism plays into it, but let's not pretend that's the major reason a different response occurs. If Elizabeth Warren has your billion-dollar industry in her sights, you will shit your pants.
They make lots of money (the median salary at Google is nearly $250,000), enjoy beautiful offices, extraordinary perks, and an altruistic mission: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
That hasn’t stopped them from giving a big chunk of their 2020 presidential donations to candidates who’ve said they will break up big tech companies like Google and limit their power. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, candidates known for their grassroots support and who are leading the charge to break up Big Tech, received the highest number of donations out of all presidential candidates from Google employees.
But these tech workers don’t hate their jobs. In fact, they think breaking Google up would be good for it.
In interviews with Recode, Google employees (mostly engineers who work on everything from Android to virtual reality) who donated to Sanders and Warren said that breaking up Google could help consumers and spur more tech innovation by allowing for more competition from upstarts. Some even said they thought regulation could force Google itself to return to its startup roots, recreating the bootstrapped work culture that they say enabled the company’s initial success. (Google executives don’t exactly agree.)
I guarantee there'd be even more if Google (and the other big tech companies) were forced to account for contractor employees
Even if Instagram and Facebook were separate companies, why would they compete to "protect your privacy and keep misinformation out of your feed"? Like, people have shown that they don't actually care about that. Wouldn't they just sell your data and inundate you with misinformation separately? I assume she probably has actual regulations for that, too, I guess. I don't think she'd be that naiive.
More importantly it's not about which has better features or whatever. It's about which one all your friends are on.
Which is why this whole plan is fundamentally flawed and misses the point. Nationalizing social media would be a better idea.
I disagree. If that was true, then everyone would still be using MySpace because it was the first and still big when Facebook came around, nor would Facebook feel the need to buy up Instagram or WhatsApp to prevent them from becoming serious competition.
It's also not how it's played out on other social platforms that are divided in a way that prevents interactivity, like video game consoles or messaging boards.
Most importantly though, we don't know how the companies would be regulated after the fact. If future Facebook and Instagram and any other social media company that wasn't focused on a single subject or location were required to create a set of features that allowed a minimum degree of cross-platform interactivity, (ala me on my Verizon Android phone able to call someone on their Sprint iPhone) then the primary consumer push for a single social media company dies.
Asked to respond to Sen. Sanders’s comment that billionaires should not exist, Zuckerberg offered an unexpected viewpoint, considering his Facebook ownership makes him worth over $69 billion.
“I understand where he’s coming from,” Zuckerberg said. “I don’t know that I have an exact threshold on what amount of money someone should have but on some level no one deserves to have that much money.”
Sen. Warren has taken more of a direct attack on Facebook, claiming that the company should be broken up. The Verge on Tuesday published audio and transcripts from a Q&A session in which Zuckerberg blasted Warren’s plan and said he’d “go to the mat” and fight it.
Zuckerberg said on Thursday that he stands by all the content in the leaked recording, but he added, “let’s try not to antagonize her further.”
who’d have thought a company that started out as a way to sexually harass women at scale would go to the mat not to be regulated by a woman really makes ya think
This is an excellent point - Facebook was built on sexism.
I disagree. Facebook is worth between 100 and 200 billion dollars--of course they'll "go to the mat" to fight a breakup in the courts. Does Mar Hicks think that if Bernie or Biden were to win and wind up pushing a breakup then Facebook would cooperate because they'd be willing to take it from a man? Taking the utterly pedestrian behavior of a large corporation under capitalism and using it as the grounds to spin yarns about Zuckerberg's personal politics or the original sins of techbro culture is inane.
(Similar points apply to Matt Yglesias slightly less spicy variation on the same theme).
The right also talked about breaking up Facebook, and yet Zuckerberg's response was quite different to them (which is part of the problem.) Why is it "inane" to suggest that Zuckerberg's argument, while in line with corporate behavior, could also be fueled by the toxic stew of sexism and misogyny in the tech industry - that Warren makes for a particularly irksome regulator because of her gender.
Can you point me to a source for this? I was aware of right wing complaints about supposed censorship on the news feed, and demands that something be done about it, but unaware of any right wing proposals to break up the company per se.
They went further than talk, actually. After the $5B fine was leveled on Facebook, the FTC and DoJ both opened anti-trust investigations. This was most likely why Zuckerberg met with Trump a few weeks ago, and may be part of why Facebook has taken a position of "we'll allow political ads to lie on our platform."
Posts
I think there are a lot of executives who would love a “reset” with investors...
Also a lot of tech workers who are tired of hearing how their bosses became billionaires through small start-ups in an age when monopolism makes that increasingly difficult, and exploded housing prices mean that even their gold-plated salary can't pay for a place to live.
They are also well-paid enough to have decent savings and the tech boom means that no-one is afraid of unemployment should they lose their job. This comfort allows them to support risk.
Also a Google breakup would make more space at the top of their little fiefdom. Advancement opportunities!
From what I understand, tech sector tends to be less liberal and more libertarian, so wanting government action, especially something like trustbusting, is very much against type.
Then again, that distrust of regulation typically comes from not wanting petty morality red tape from getting in the way of innovation, and if they think the current Big 3 are getting in the way, they would probably be on board with breaking them up.
I think there is definitely a fatigue of seeing your scrappy innovative tech space turn into GE, PG&E, and ATT
Especially if you didn't get any real equity while there.
It eventually breaks down into two groups:
1) People who paid attention in History class. They end up liberal.
2) "Ugh, taxes". They tell people they're Libertarian, but vote Republican.
Honestly if you're a tech person in Seattle and don't live in a downtown apartment, the lack of quality internet service in the area alone is enough to turn you into a anti-trust supporter. But I know more than a few Amazon, Facebook and Google employees in the area that are not super enamored with their own companies.
Friend recently got hired on at Facebook, and apparently the average turnover rate is about a year right now. Getting people to stick around is very, very difficult for them at the moment. Said friend also doesn't even use Facebook. So :rotate:
Amazon also keeps sending recruiters after me, which concerns me as to their desperation, as while I am a coder, I’m in a completely different field.
Amazon is a very mixed environment. There are good stories and bad stories.
Even if Facebook is forced to break apart its empire you'll still be a billionaire you fucking asshole! You've got more money than you can spend in a lifetime and you're using it to do evil things like steal Hawai'i away from its rightful native population!
It's beyond greed. Zuckerberg has spent his entire life making sure that he could be held accountable to nobody.
He thinks he should rule the world. Any level of accountability is too much for him. Too bad he's relatively terrible at most things he touches.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The business model is that they use the data to sell ads. There's no point if it is a common dataset that the advertisers could get on their own.
This is an excellent point - Facebook was built on sexism.
More importantly it's not about which has better features or whatever. It's about which one all your friends are on.
Which is why this whole plan is fundamentally flawed and misses the point. Nationalizing social media would be a better idea.
I disagree. Facebook is worth between 100 and 200 billion dollars--of course they'll "go to the mat" to fight a breakup in the courts. Does Mar Hicks think that if Bernie or Biden were to win and wind up pushing a breakup then Facebook would cooperate because they'd be willing to take it from a man? Taking the utterly pedestrian behavior of a large corporation under capitalism and using it as the grounds to spin yarns about Zuckerberg's personal politics or the original sins of techbro culture is inane.
(Similar points apply to Matt Yglesias slightly less spicy variation on the same theme).
The right also talked about breaking up Facebook, and yet Zuckerberg's response was quite different to them (which is part of the problem.) Why is it "inane" to suggest that Zuckerberg's argument, while in line with corporate behavior, could also be fueled by the toxic stew of sexism and misogyny in the tech industry - that Warren makes for a particularly irksome regulator because of her gender.
Can you point me to a source for this? I was aware of right wing complaints about supposed censorship on the news feed, and demands that something be done about it, but unaware of any right wing proposals to break up the company per se.
The right were doing that because they wanted Facebook to treat them more favorably, something Zuckerberg is happy to do if it will temporarily shut them up. Warren is proposing real regulatory and anti-trust action and isn't going to be convinced to do otherwise by anything Zuckerberg would be willing to do on that front. If you're a criminal and you're dealing with a crooked cop you can bribe them, if you're dealing with an honest one you lawyer up. This really isn't that different.
The right talked about breaking up Facebook because they wanted to push their conservative persecution bullshit, and since it's bullshit, it can easily be deflected with more bullshit, and it was.
What Warren wants isn't bullshit, and doesn't originate in bad faith. It is borne of facts. And she has a track record of being more than just threatening talk. That requires a much different response. Do you have any doubts that she'll try and break up Facebook? Or at least push for compromise that still fucks them pretty good?
You may be right that his sexism plays into it, or Facebook's sexism plays into it, but let's not pretend that's the major reason a different response occurs. If Elizabeth Warren has your billion-dollar industry in her sights, you will shit your pants.
I guarantee there'd be even more if Google (and the other big tech companies) were forced to account for contractor employees
I disagree. If that was true, then everyone would still be using MySpace because it was the first and still big when Facebook came around, nor would Facebook feel the need to buy up Instagram or WhatsApp to prevent them from becoming serious competition.
It's also not how it's played out on other social platforms that are divided in a way that prevents interactivity, like video game consoles or messaging boards.
Most importantly though, we don't know how the companies would be regulated after the fact. If future Facebook and Instagram and any other social media company that wasn't focused on a single subject or location were required to create a set of features that allowed a minimum degree of cross-platform interactivity, (ala me on my Verizon Android phone able to call someone on their Sprint iPhone) then the primary consumer push for a single social media company dies.
They went further than talk, actually. After the $5B fine was leveled on Facebook, the FTC and DoJ both opened anti-trust investigations. This was most likely why Zuckerberg met with Trump a few weeks ago, and may be part of why Facebook has taken a position of "we'll allow political ads to lie on our platform."