Dystopian tales of that time when I sold out to Google
194 comments
·June 6, 2025pnathan
ryandrake
As another poster[1] put it, it's important to remember that these white collar people's privilege often comes at the expense of others, and to not treat them like they are furniture in the background--they are people and deserve to be recognized and treated as people.
And this is true all the way up to the top! For each of the many rungs on the socio-economic totem pole, there are many people on that rung who treat everyone on rungs below them as if they're invisible robotic servants.
lanyard-textile
My manager at Google wanted me to change my personal “about me” snippet in the introductory email he was about to send out: It needed some information about where I previously worked (which I intentionally left out — who cares?? I’m here now!)
I never really thought much of it at the time. Internalized that as “oh, I misunderstood the purpose of the email.” But it tracks with elements of OP’s story; the exposition of your identity is curated.
black_13
[dead]
sa-code
> You cannot make people work for you and hoard all the profits while they are stuck with fixed salaries, without in the process developing strong feelings on why you're entitled to do that and how they deserve it actually.
I wonder why we don't see more software engineering co ops?
pclmulqdq
Because people don't like risk and if they can make a boat load of money without risk they would rather do that than make 10 boat loads of money with risk.
cj
Code doesn’t make engineers money.
Selling the code does.
Engineers typically aren’t very good sales people.
teaearlgraycold
Why not have a marketer at the co-op?
roenxi
That is how a lot of software engineering firms run in practice - the good engineers have buy in through stock options.
A lot of engineers are replaceable though. They get less stock.
izacus
Because people who would support a coop and write posts like these usually end up being disastrous company leads. Then add multiple of them and committees.
JackFr
Because someone has to put up the money. And the people who put up the money want a return on it, or they will put their money somewhere else.
tomrod
I believe Spain does this.
bee_rider
Annoyingly this is a hard concept to search because co-op is also another word for, basically, an internship.
rjbwork
A combination of a persistent strain of rugged individualist libertarian attitudes and ego. Everyone thinking we're better than everyone else and if only we could be in charge everything would be better than if those other idiots were prevents the kind of solidarity needed to do co-ops or professional associations or partnerships like lawyers.
meesles
Very well-written. My main takeaway and constant reminder is that our privilege, no matter the size, usually comes at someone's expense.
oulipo
Exactly, and it's funny because here everytime we discuss the impact of AI on vulnerable population, be it for taking jobs / increasing CO2 consumption / destabilizing politics, there's always a rich white guy with his cushy programmer job saying "but I don't understand, to me all this AI stuff is nice, I can work even more comfortably"...
MisterTea
> there's always a rich white guy with his cushy programmer job saying "but I don't understand, to me all this AI stuff is nice, I can work even more comfortably"...
How do you know they are white?
SpicyLemonZest
I don't think I have ever seen someone on HN dismiss concerns about AI's impact on other people by saying it's good for them personally. I think you have a stereotype of a white guy with a cushy programmer job in your head, and you hear him saying this when other people of various races say other things.
null
reaperducer
I don't think I have ever seen someone on HN dismiss concerns about AI's impact on other people by saying it's good for them personally.
You may read different threads than the parent. I see it occasionally. Not as often as the crypto bros, but it exists on HN.
wizardforhire
Oh my friend, you are visiting a different hn than a lot of us. I nearly got in a flame war yesterday with a noob and had to step back because of the density, caught my self being bated by a potential troll. Their argument was exactly what you’re claiming to have not seen.
To be fair I never stereotyped them even in my mind. But the audacity and dismissal of others was very bating.
I did my best but still a very poor job of arguing and had to step away.
JohnMakin
> Google back then prided itself on broadcasting its Best Place To Work award, won year after year after year. Younger people will have trouble picturing this, but Google used to nurture an image of being the “good one” among megacorps;
It's crazy to think about now. Google's image was a big driver in my choice to go back to school and start a tech career, my end and pretty much only goal was to work at google. I made it through several rounds of interviews and got rejected pretty late. It hurt really bad at that time, but looking back now, I think it was one of the best things that could have happened to me.
kens
I was curious about Google's current Best Place to Work rating. Forbes puts Alphabet at #2, but there are competing lists and Google is #6 on some others.
arolihas
Oh yeah the horror of not being able to go behind your boss's back in a company email. The tragedy of being ignored when bringing up office equipment in a discussion about saving costs in a tech platform. The inhumanity of having workers hired to make food and do dishes on a Friday. The absolute gall to be asked a question about the identity you are proud and obnoxiously open about. What a dystopia, Brazil would have been better off without Google definitely, if only they had polyamorous anarchists running things.
jimkoen
> Oh yeah the horror of not being able to go behind your boss's back in a company email.
The horror of finding out that my employer lies to me and invades my basic human right to privacy, because they know they can only get what they want from me by manipulating me.
> The tragedy of being ignored when bringing up office equipment in a discussion about saving costs in a tech platform.
The tragedy of pointing out, that apparently only some deverse clean water, while others don't.
> The inhumanity of having workers hired to make food and do dishes on a Friday.
The inhumanity of devaluing people based on their misfortune in life, that didn't enable them to jump into a well paying tech job.
> The absolute gall to be asked a question about the identity you are proud and obnoxiously open about.
The absolute gall of my employer to berate me about my pride, my _identity_ they find so obnoxious, only to take advantage of it once it serves their purpose.
The water purifier thing was CARTOONISHLY evil, like you took it from the fucking Fallout Universe!!!!
the_cat_kittles
all the instances they discussed highlight the contrast between what google presented itself as, vs what it actually was. i dont think this person is asking for sympathy, i think they hate google for trying to pretend its anything different than any other big profit seeking enterprise. sounds like you are well on your way to the hostility the author very succinctly describes
arolihas
Thank you :)
redczar
The “obnoxiously open about” part of your post says much about you. Your post would have been much better without that part.
Google was “obnoxiously open about” do no evil and the other stuff described in the blog post. It’s natural for people who bought into those lies to react accordingly. Nothing in the blog post suggests a belief that polyamorous anarchists would be better at running things.
kurthr
And yet, there are much more pernicious elements to dystopia Google has become and ways that it perpetuates them through the efforts of people just like this so that they can literally have a "free lunch". These are the type of complaints that minimize the actual failure of "don't be evil" as implemented by their very efforts. Personnel minutia distract from the Orwellian prize.
calcifer
> Personnel minutia distract from the Orwellian prize.
The "minutiae" you so casually refer to are people. The OP understands that:
> The “campus” was pretty open and my then-wife visited it a few times; it creeped the Fuck out of her, the distinction between people and non-people.
null
hattmall
There's a quote, at least from the movie, where Zuckerberg calls people "dumb fucks." I honestly have to think the same about anyone that seriously bought into a corporation putting "do no evil" in a mission statement.
It is simply not possible to extract billions of dollars unless you have ascended above the idea of not fucking people over.
jplusequalt
>The absolute gall to be asked a question about the identity you are proud and obnoxiously open about
>if only they had polyamorous anarchists running things
This comment comes off as highly reactionary.
bigstrat2003
Using "reactionary" as a boo light is not a substantive comment. If you think he's wrong, argue why rather than just going "ew, right wing".
Supermancho
> if only they had polyamorous anarchists running things
The straw man is obvious. There was no coherent argument to be made against a constructed absurdity.
jplusequalt
>If you think he's wrong, argue why rather than just going "ew, right wing".
I'd rather save my energy. Not every comment you see online is deserving of respect or a thoughtful response. It's clear they weren't willing to actually engage with the article and provide a meaningful comment, and I pointed that out before disengaging.
dsr_
It's only a "boo light" if you think that it's a bad thing.
Do you think that being reactionary is a bad thing?
null
axus
Radical transparency doesn't mean you get to say negative things!
Aunche
You can't have radical transparency without a blameless culture. Calling someone out in the open is in bad taste anywhere. It's also common sense. As Omar says, "If you come at the king, you best not miss." It's possible that the author really did just write an innocuous post criticizing recruiting practices, but I don't see why their the manager would single out the boss if that were the case.
dsr_
The negative thing being described was the inability of 95% of the engineers to use the 20% time which was being described by the company as a general perk.
"The company is deceiving people and should reconsider messaging to reflect reality" is not a personal attack; even in a "blameless" culture, you are expected to note that the causal chain includes "Dave hit the wrong button, which should not have happened because we should have safeguards on the button and reviews to make sure we have safeguards on all the expensive/dangerous buttons." Sorry, Dave.
JackFr
I believe what he likely meant (though not what he said), was that radical transparency shouldn’t be taken as a license to be an asshole.
I say that as a manager of narcissistic assholes who are always “brutally honest” and feel that their honesty excuses their brutality.
wgjordan
Be kind. Don't be snarky.
JohnMakin
found one
jes5199
> Like most employees I blamed myself for not working hard enough to get good compensation
ohh. I feel like I understanding something about my peers now that I had not caught onto before
QuercusMax
The dictbot story's interpretation of why TVCs (that's what they were called when I was at Google; never heard "temps, part-timers, and contractors") need to be treated like second-class citizens is incorrect.
It's not because they wanted Engineers to feel like golden gods to build their egos - it's because they don't want the TVCs to be treated as employees under employment law. There was a guy who worked in the kitchens who got added to access the music room storage closet in PDX so he could keep his guitar there, and we were told he had to be removed since he was a TVC. That closet is apparently "FTEs and interns only", because if we treat our kitchen staff too well they might have to be given the same benefits as the rest of us.
It used to be possible for somebody to work their way up from the mailroom to the executive suite. This path has been deliberately destroyed because the owning class wants to divide employees into different classes.
No war but class war.
bluedevilzn
> And all that with wages well below even the local market in our crumbling Third World economy. With no exciting research positions nor self-managed time nor compensation, what was the advantage over a high-paying job at Microsoft or IBM?
When did Google pay less than Microsoft/IBM?
esprehn
I think the author is taking about Brazil? It wasn't clear to me until later in the article.
rdlw
The two-paragraph introduction explicitly places this article in Brazil in 2007
mrisoli
Which confused me, as someone from Belo Horizonte who started uni just around that time. As far as I knew, Google was generally known one of the highest paying companies by far back then. It's benefits were unmatched because the SV-style of office with all the perks were not commonplace in the region, and employee turnover was low to non-existent. Even getting an interview if you didn't have a masters or phd was pretty difficult if not impossible(without connections).
blindriver
This entire blog post is so poorly written that I was confused as well. They mention Brazil, but they also mention Arizona. And for some reason the person who asked them about gay lingo wasn't Brazilian so were they in the US? It was a very tough read.
dunkelheit
I just love how John Patience became Джона Пейшенса, like it is some exotic slavic woman's name.
selimthegrim
Wait until you hear how USSR VLKSM used to denounce the “KLESh” in posters.
tomrod
> Today, the concept of “spyware” has been obsoleted because every software is spyware. Google's “organising the information of the world” turned out to be indexing which Gaza families to bomb, children and all; “making money in the free market to invest in social change” was about bankrolling literal, textbook fascism. Today, for us Latinx to even briefly step in the USA, if we don't have an always-on handheld device with spyware “social media”, its absence is taken as proof of criminality. I will never visit Arizona again, and my kids will never know a world that's not like this; but for me I saw this world being forged up close and personal, deep in Mordor where the shadows lie.
This hits home.
mm263
Seems overly dramatic
JKCalhoun
Sure, to make a point though.
ranyume
Dark times when people can become "overly dramatic" for things that are essential. A relaxation, and forgotten fundamental rights. "It is what it is"
JohnMakin
From a place of privilege, it might seem so!
latinotrw
[flagged]
lern_too_spel
They're Brazilian, so while people might not talk to them in Spanish, I'm sure people talk to them in Portuguese. They probably used the term Latinx because they are both Latin and trans, which Latin alone doesn't convey.
People complaining about words that other people use to describe themselves is a strange recent phenomenon. Just a few years ago, it was accepted that not everyone has to follow your religion.
Aunche
> indexing which Gaza families to bomb
Wtf does this even mean? If Hamas used Google docs to plan their attack, does that make Google guilty of killing Israeli families? Coincidentally, this sort of hyperbole always seems to end at the critic's own actions in the chain of complicity of evil. I've never heard an activist call claim that they were personally funding genocide by paying taxes.
ranyume
Israel has many ties with corporations and governments. This might be why, but I'm also not sure what the author's talking about. It would be nice to have some context.
dingnuts
the author is grandstanding from an unprincipled stance. Israel can choose which families are harboring Hamas members and decide which houses to bomb or just bomb everything.
Hamas could also surrender after losing the war they started, at any time, and stand trial for starting a war. Hamas can choose to stop using their children as shields at any time. Hamas is to blame for everything.
jeffbee
Man, "bring your whole self to work" was well intentioned but ultimately a mistake. Just bring the part that knows how to program computers, and leave whatever part this is turned off from 9-5.
JohnFen
To be honest, I don't even know what "bring your whole self to work" means. If it means that I need to mix my personal life with my work life or a rejection of behaving as a mature professional, then I object strongly to the idea.
null
tomatotomato37
I always assumed "bring your whole self to work" was just a nice way to lead into "you don't need work/life balance because your work is your life"
cobertos
What kind of life is that? To be a sterile, subservient entity for the majority of your existence.
Being authentic in the working world helps in so many ways. And it works when your goals and the goals of the company align. The advice to just shut up and code leads to no good outcomes for anyone.
ecshafer
Are there parts of your whole self that are not always appropriate to bring up? I sure think so. If one team mates whole self includes their support for Israel and another whole self is their support for Palestine, maybe we can leave some of these whole selfs at home, and just talk about work, and maybe how our camping trip this weekend was. People shouldn't have to be proselytized by any other people's extreme religious or political views at work.
cobertos
Very true, there is a balance to be found. The suggestion from OP to leave it all at home, to focus purely on skill and merit is too black/white.
Palomides
>be a sterile, subservient entity for the majority of your existence
yeah, having a job sucks shit, we know
most people don't have the luxury of working a job that's worth aligning with
pnathan
This isn't how people really are.
People have different presentations for different social contexts. That's typical and normal. For a working example, the social context of the marital bedroom is not the social context of the city playground where you mind your kids. Differences in clothing, actions, words.
This spans into most areas of life.
You don't have to sterilize your work life - but you do have to have _boundaries_.
cobertos
But this is how people really are. Being authentic is easier for some because the corporate world more closely aligns with the dominant culture. Take the casual ignorance of an employee PC background of a sexy woman, because that's just how the boys are. Or how women are meant to breastfeed out of sight.
People do present differently in different contexts. But it is a requirement to file off all your sharp edges to participate effectively in the workplace. Intentionally limiting yourself, your output, to cater to the social conformity of others seems to be an anti-goal. But it is what we do.
jeffbee
Good ways to bring your unique perspective to a professional context: intervening to avoid making some users feel offended or excluded, before a project ships to those users.
Bad ways: just yammering about how you are poly, bi, trans, and a revolutionary anarchist while we are trying to finalize OKRs for the quarter.
JackFr
Your authenticity is not everyone’s authenticity.
cobertos
And the opposite is true. There's a balance. For some that authenticity really works for them at work (those with a general curiosity, an interest in how groups interact and work, who are workaholics) and it aligns. For others it does not and is unfortunate in its requirement of more energy to suppress and lack of natural culture-fit.
null
constantcrying
Obviously. And I do believe the same type of person who wants to "bring your whole self to work" also is the most disgusted by seeing it implemented. If there had been a culture of professionalism you obviously do not ask some random other employees about gay slang.
Ultimately work is a give and take. And it gets easier when it is clearly defined what is given and what is taken. That is what "professionalism" in a work environment is about. Pretending that work is some great family adventure can only lead to terrible results when conflict inevitably arises.
foldr
This misses the point. Certain groups of people have always been able to bring their whole selves to work. For example, if you're straight and married with kids, there's never been a problem about casually mentioning these things to your colleagues.
In another post, you mention
>Bad ways [to bring your whole self to work]: just yammering about how you are poly, bi, trans, and a revolutionary anarchist while we are trying to finalize OKRs for the quarter.
Do you know who 'yammers' most about their personal lives? Straight people with kids! It's not even close. I wish the majority of people doing the yammering were poly, bi and trans. It might be a touch less boring.
jeffbee
See, you have improperly conflated reproductive preference with sexual orientation and gender expression. That's exclusionary!
foldr
No, I haven't. I'm just saying that straight people with kids often talk about their personal lives at work (which is fine), whereas other groups of people don't always feel as free to do the same thing. If we were making a list of "kinds of people who are likely to talk lots about their personal lives in a work environment", then bi trans poly folks would not be at the top of it. If you genuinely disagree with any of those points then we can have a discussion about it. But I can't really connect your sarcastic response with what I originally said.
I was a teen in the 90s, in my circles it was Understood that the data was not private.
Some of this in any case sounds like the usual "did not grow up in white collar society, got white collar job, got in trouble for violating white collar norms" that class-changers go through. Lots of !!fun!!.
I too get troubled when the operations staff get "invisible'd" - they are members of society too and should be treated with dignity. But in a tolerably decent situation, they are recognized and respected in their field as well. Even if its the evening shift to do the janitorial work. There's nothing _immoral_ about having a party and hiring some people to clean up. It's treating them as _lower_ than you that is the failure.
Anyway. There's an - as far as I know - as yet unwritten story around those of us who came from non-white collar backgrounds and found this new world confusing.