Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- by ur-whale
- I'm glad James Damore's arguments were correctly strawmanned
- I remember this period of Google very vividly, it felt absolutely surreal to see everything about the company immediately leaked to the press and getting insane media coverage. Younger me was very skeptical and it was hard for me to reconcile what the truth was given the broader political climate and my own anecdata that none of the women I worked with empathized with or shared the experiences of the internal activists.
At the time, I had a gutt feeling that all of the stories I read on internal threads and that the loudest voices, largely came from women in non-engineering/product roles, and this article (+book) has somewhat confirmed that for me. Even Sergei cheated on his wife with a woman in marketing in 2013.
Since the majority of Google is engineers, I believe Claire's movement ultimately failed because most of the company (again, engineers), looked to their peers and didn't see any of the systemic issues the movement espoused.
by calderwoodra - I don't know where else to express gratitude for the delightful read that this was.
I wish to hope that more and more people are seeing the hollowness of all that these corporations posture and profess.
by sssilver - I actually enjoyed the first hand experience of an early-ish Google described at the beginning. For those with enough tenure in tech, was this ethos unique (at the time)? Or was it typical of successful, tech-heavy startups? I could believe an early Sun might've felt similar but I don't know.
- Most of the top names had unique, great cultures at some point. Early Microsoft was awesome, as well, I hear, early Apple.by glimshe
- FYI: this is an excerpt from https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Be-Evil-Bosses-Promises/dp/00634...by flakiness
- Fun easter egg: the barcode on the cover (the one on the left at least) is for the book's ISBN.by ImJasonH
- This story naturally ends after Claire's departure, but "that the era of sanctioned dissent was over" did not mean that dissent was over. The lesson for many was that "asking nicely" wasn't working. I believe that realization that real power was needed to in order to make change was a big part of why the Alphabet Workers Union was able to get off the ground. Of course it hasn't gotten the numbers to actually build much power, sadly.by advisedwang
- It wasn't over at that time. The real shift was after those people broke into Thomas Kurian's office. Right after, they permanently cracked down hard on various forms of employee expression, including posting flyers.by frollogaston
- Hasn't yet. No need to be defeatist about organizing. All of the other things tech workers have to be defeatist about (pointless hype cycles, layoffs, etc.) show no signs of stopping and will effectuate more organizing over time.by jackb4040
- I was there 06-25, and this matches my recollection. Honestly, it's a very restrained document.by pkasting
- Agreed. From firsthand experience, it's accurate, captures the feeling of being there at that time, and is more restrained than I would have been.by hglaser
- I can't help but see most of this as Claire using her gift of elegant prose and crafting narratives to retell a story of a prodigy that had a great product-market fit in the beginning then was unable to maintain relevancy while becoming bitter at the people around her. It must be so difficult to start out as a shining star then watch something you helped shape grow away from you. It looks like some powerful people at Google tried very hard to keep her with all these dramatic job changes. I always thought the walk-out seemed more dramatic and showy than people actually working for positive change (virtue signaling for their careers/to get their 5min), but I was very much on the outside. Seems hard all around.by scottyah
- I didn't get that vibe from this piece at all. Claire sounds disillusioned more than she sounds bitter, and I really don't see too much supporting the narrative about her becoming upset because of her lack of relevancy.by Centigonal
- The main bitterness is pretty clearly directed at Google's handling of internal sexism and sexual misconduct, culminating at what seems to be pretty direct (but underhanded) retaliation at the organizers of the walkout during a time when they gathered sustained internal and external publicity, leading to her immediate departure. Are you claiming the real spark of that conflict was her "being bitter at the people around her due to being unable to maintain relevancy" and not any real convictions she held regarding the known misconduct at the company? Seems like a dubious accusation to me in that case.
- Not sure it's still virtue signaling when you sacrifice your job. That might actually be virtue.
I wonder though, what counts as actual virtue for some people.
by JKCalhoun - When claire stopped writing the tgif emails I was very sad, among others I talked to. When I heard, years later, about all this bs she went through, it helped crack the illusion for me. So sad.by alextp
- Google figured out how to create a classless suite of internet services for anyone on Earth with an internet connection to use. I struggle to see how this didn't meet their original goals, what people celebrated about Google, and what made Google such an attractive place for people like the author to work.
What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken for granted), and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it.
So if we use Google as a case study for "progressive business", having mostly succeeded at giving the poorest people one Earth an equal product to the richest people on Earth, what is the takeaway?
by WarmWash - Love Google for what it once was, hate it for what it became.
- > Google is one of the most hated corporations for it.
This is such a terminally online take. It's important to not look at the bubble you're in and get fooled into thinking it's a representative microcosm when it almost never is.
I'm reminded of when Quora was hyped up on HN and in Silicon Valley in general. VCs were waxing lyrical about how "everyone" they knew was using it but "everyone" here was "everyone they knew", which is a subset of "everyone in the VC/SV space".
Google is not hated by the general public. My basis for this is the 2025 Harris poll on company reputation [1].
[1]: https://www.axios.com/2025/05/20/axios-harris-poll-company-r...
by jmyeet - Google is loved for the things they built that cause people to love Google (GMail, Search, Drive, K8s, Android, Patents, Books, Nest, Wave, Workspace, YouTube) and Google is hated for the things they built that cause people to hate Google (the targeted advertising money machine, Google+, the many negative second-order effects of their loved products). I don't see these two things being mutually exclusive. On balance, I think more people have a positive opinion of Google than do for Microsoft, Amazon, or Facebook.
Also, humans are a pretty tough audience when it comes to utilities, with that hedonistic adaptation and all. You don't see many people walking around waxing lyrical about the wonders of modern sanitation, water purification, and plumbing -- but people do complain about water bills.
by Centigonal - They de-facto created a monopoly. You can reason that its services are useful, but without also pointing out that they established a de-facto monopoly, this "analysis" is very incomplete.
> what people celebrated about Google
When exactly? Google initially was not anywhere near as problematic as it is today. I don't see many celebrate Google these days.
> what made Google such an attractive place for people like the author to work.
Was it ever? It also feels it used to be more attractive in the past. Nowadays you do not see any such yubilant posts about Google anymore. People complain a lot more about Google.
> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken for granted), and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it.
That's also not true. Some of Google's service are still popular such as Google Maps. You see very little criticism about it. But in other parts, Google revealed how truly evil it is. Be it the fight against ublock origin or Google locking down Android or dominating the www via abusing adChromium. Nope, sorry, the criticism against Google is totally warranted. Years ago I did not understand the de-google movement. Now I am of the opposite opinion and even more extreme. I think Google has to be removed from this planet as entity. Someone needs to chop it up. The US courts are too corrupt and bribed to change anything. I think the people need to fix Google, by no longer using it. This is difficult, I get it; I am still using Google, such as youtube. That's actually my biggest use case of Google. The browser (thorium) is the second loophole here but in theory I could use firefox.
> So if we use Google as a case study for "progressive business", having mostly succeeded at giving the poorest people one Earth an equal product to the richest people on Earth, what is the takeaway?
That's like saying Al Capone is a saint. You try to connect evil with good. There is no connection here. Google remains an evil corporation even if it makes useful services. But it also kills existing services - look at the Google graveyard. Look how they crippled its search engine. Google pisses off people - why do you not see this? You basically wrote an eulogy for Google here. No specific criticism at all.
by shevy-java - Yes, both rich and poor people will use Google's free services. It's sort of like how a can of Coke is the same no matter who you are.
But also, Google sells plenty of "premium" products to people who are willing to pay, starting with YouTube premium. And I'm getting lots of upsells when using Google Meet these days.
by skybrian - In general, this is just the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics combined with armchair quarterbacking. Google’s services, like Amazon’s, create unbelievably large amounts of value for people of which these companies capture a tiny fraction.
However, these are fairly popular brands with positive associations for the majority of people. Online commentary is from a self-selected group and cynicism stands in as the poor man’s substitute for analysis.
by arjie - Well, they aren't hated for the tech they built, that is cool and easily appreciated.
People don't like google because they turned it into a way to sell people to others for a profit in essence. Over time more and more intrusive to the point where they are no longer worth any of the services they offer. Like a creepy stalker following you every where you go, at some point you need a restraining order.
Most people don't even realize the creepy stalker exists though.
by smalltorch
The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained.> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this, and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it.You can both love and hate something at the same time. Humans have complexity and nuance, don't dismiss that.
It's also worth noting that complaints are more vocal than complements. If things are working well then it's usually quiet. Nothing to say. But when shit goes wrong people talk because they want it fixed. Don't let this bias fool you into thinking that appreciation isn't happening. Appreciation is generally silent while hatred is vocal. That's not isolated to the internet either
by godelski- by menno-sh